Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered further on Wednesday 8 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Development Banks

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement on the role of development banks in her Department's policies. [111173]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government are a major shareholder in, and work closely with, all the key multilateral development banks—the World Bank, the Asian Development bank, the Inter-American Development bank, the African Development bank, the Caribbean Development bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I am the United Kingdom governor of the development banks, and an alternate governor of the EBRD. UK representatives sit on the boards of all the banks, which have the capacity to contribute significantly to development. The regional banks have special authority in their regions. Since May 1997, we have worked to ensure that all the development banks focus their efforts on achieving international poverty eradication targets.

Mr. Swayne: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. The state of the road network in Mozambique has significantly impaired relief and rescue efforts. However, a 30—month programme for rehabilitation of Mozambique's roads is due for appraisal by the African Development bank at the end of May. What can the Department for International Development do to pressure banks to develop infrastructure in countries prone to natural disasters?

Clare Short: The African Development bank went through a bad phase of overlending and inefficiency, but has become much more efficient under the leadership of President Kabbaj. I believe that the public sector should

contribute to road building where private finance cannot work. In Mozambique, that idea applies largely to rural roads, which make a difference if people are to improve their livelihoods by getting their crops to market or to get their children to school.
Africa has suffered because roads have been built but not maintained. We must encourage the private sector to become involved and the public sector to organise itself to maintain roads. The African Development bank should help to achieve a network in collaboration with the private sector, and the public sector should help rural people to have basic roads. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that Mozambique needs masses of them.

Mr. Tony Worthington: It is greatly to the Government's credit that we can talk more widely about organisations in which we are major shareholders. Particularly welcome is the Asian Development bank's recent commitment to the eradication of poverty as one of its major purposes. Does my right hon. Friend welcome that commitment, and does she hope that other bodies will follow suit?

Clare Short: I do, indeed, and I admire the leadership given to the Asian Development bank by President Chino. My hon. Friend's point is similar to that made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne): we need feasibility studies and regulatory systems that will bring private sector investment into major infrastructure, and we need to use the development banks to strengthen social sectors and focus on poverty. President Chino has done that effectively, and I am very impressed.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the African Development bank can play a vital role in the eventual reconstruction of Mozambique. Does she agree, however, that the clear priority today is to save the lives of the 100,000 people stranded in trees, on roofs and on high ground in a fellow Commonwealth country? I thank the right hon. Lady for what her Department has already done, but is it not obvious that too few helicopters are flying in Mozambique? Why will she not combine forces with the Ministry of Defence, charter heavy-lift aircraft and fly a batch of British helicopters and pilots to Mozambique before it is too late?

Clare Short: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's praise for my officials, who are working enormously hard. I fear that the situation in Mozambique is terrible, and that it is going to get much worse. Another cyclone is on the way, another river is about to overflow, and Caborra Basso must be allowed to overflow if it is not to put more people at risk.
Since I made my statement to the House on Monday, we have found some more helicopters. On the point about the Ministry of Defence, however, I must say that my Department's duty—the instruction that I have given my officials—is to find, from whatever source, the most rapidly available equipment and people who can be sent into theatre as quickly as possible. If the Ministry of Defence can help, that is good, but we must not delay just so that we can have equipment or personnel from our own Ministry. We must deploy whatever we can.
We have found two extra helicopters, which will be working tomorrow. We are sending to Mozambique tomorrow two planes and 30 UK volunteers who are expert in emergencies—including fire brigade personnel. We are sending 79 boats with engines: even with all the helicopters we could get, we could not get people out without boats. We need helicopters and boats. We will drop boats so that people can get into them, and we will need bigger boats to pull them in. We will do everything in our power to put in whatever equipment we can as quickly as possible. If the MOD is the best source, we will use it; if not, we will not.

Mr. Streeter: I am sure that the whole House welcomes what the Secretary of State says, but our responsibility is to do all that we can today. If it takes two days to fly helicopters down there from Europe, surely the sooner we get them flying, saving lives and distributing food, the better. It was obvious from the response on Monday that co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence is not all that it might be. Will she make it a key priority to co-operate with the Ministry of Defence and get more helicopters working to save lives today?

Clare Short: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There is absolutely no problem about co-operation with the Ministry of Defence. He may remember that, when Hurricane Mitch struck, we happened to have a British ship full of helicopters in the area. We have to be opportunistic in emergencies and make use of what is available as rapidly as possible. Even if people manage to cling on to their trees, they will not have water and food unless we get to them. We are talking about human lives that need to be saved very quickly. I have no preference for any source, and that is my instruction to my officials.
The problem is not shortage of money, either, but getting resources deployed in theatre quickly. If the Ministry of Defence can help, we will take that help; if not, we will go elsewhere. We should use MOD forces when they can get there quickly, but we should not be biased towards them and make things slower and more expensive. That would be very foolish.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My understanding is that the Royal Air Force has hired an Antonov, which is on its way carrying helicopters that will be deployed within 48 hours. Is that correct?

Clare Short: I hope that my hon. Friend is right, but I have not heard that, and I think that I would have if it were the case.

Development Education

Mr. David Heath: What steps she is taking to encourage the promotion of education on development issues in schools. [111174]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): In the White Paper we said that all children in the United Kingdom should be educated about development issues so that they can understand the key global issues that will shape their lives, so our Department has participated in

curriculum reviews throughout the UK and secured enhanced opportunities for development issues to be included in the mainstream curriculum. We are working to ensure that teachers have the back-up to achieve that.
We have also doubled support for school linking projects, which I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in. There are now 822 recorded, and we are ready to consider further support for such schemes.

Mr. Heath: That is extremely welcome. The Minister obviously understands the huge value in helping young people to understand the enormity of events such as those in Mozambique by learning about the everyday life of people in developing countries. Will he celebrate with me the work that is going on in schools throughout the country? May I renew my invitation to him and the Secretary of State to visit Ansford community school in my constituency, which is doing outstanding, and now nationally recognised, work with Zambia?

Mr. Foulkes: I certainly hope that one of us can take up that offer. We really enjoy visiting schools. I went to Holy Cross school in Croy in Lanarkshire, where the children had been studying Victorian times in history. When they read about child labour, they suddenly realised that the same thing is happening in our world today, and we need to do something about it.
I then went to Tunbridge Wells. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, we go anywhere: there are no no-go areas for new Labour. There, the kids had accessed the DFID internet site. They knew all about me, including my age, and they had accessed photographs of me. They had also accessed the House of Commons website, and they had a photograph of you, Madam Speaker, which was much better than the ones of me.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps Mr. Pike can do better than that for me.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not most encouraging that the two things about which young people most often write to Members of Parliament are the environment and international development? Does not that show that there is a great future for our young people and that education in those areas is already working?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree. When I visit schools I am greatly encouraged by the depth of knowledge and understanding of such issues, but we are not complacent: we inherited a budget of £750,000 for development education, and next year it will be £5 million.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister consider how his Department can encourage schemes whereby the increasing number of young people who have a gap year after school can visit third world countries and contribute directly to development there?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I am certainly happy to look at that—we look at all sorts of things. I have met with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who is the Scottish Education Minister, and with Martin McGuinness when he was the Minister


responsible in Northern Ireland, and I intend to meet Welsh Ministers. We shall discuss all those opportunities for school and post-school activities.

Poverty Reduction

Mr. David Drew: When she last met her EU counterparts to discuss the issue of poverty reduction. [111175]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last discussed poverty elimination with her EU counterparts at the Development Council in November, at which she introduced a specific agenda item on improving the poverty focus of European Commission aid. I, too, met Ministers at the informal Development Council in Lisbon in January. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working to improve the contribution of EC development programmes to the international poverty eradication strategy.

Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for that good news. Does he agree that it is vital that the EU speak with one voice? The Government have a clear strategy on poverty alleviation. Anything we do to pull countries along with us is to be welcomed.

Mr. Foulkes: I agree. We are spending more than 70 per cent. of our development assistance in the poorest countries of the world. The EC did the same in 1987, but by 1997, the proportion was down to 54 per cent. That trend must be reversed. We are pleased that, at our suggestion, the Commission is to make proposals on improving the poverty focus. We expect the paper to be produced later this month. We believe that it should include a target of at least 70 per cent. of expenditure going to the poorest countries in the world.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister make it clear to his EU counterparts that the eradication of poverty is not furthered by corruption, military adventurism overseas, or the expropriation of private agricultural holdings, as is happening in Zimbabwe? Will he ensure that there is a moral dimension to the EU's aid programme?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's points. We are especially concerned about Zimbabwe's proposals on land acquisition. We are in favour of land reform in that country and would encourage proper land reform. On his other points, the hon. Gentleman and I spent a couple of hours this morning in European Standing Committee B, discussing them in detail. I am sure that he knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government as a whole and I are all committed to improving the poverty focus of the European Commission's programme.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that Poul Nielson, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, visited Mozambique yesterday? Is he also aware that, at lunchtime, Glenys Kinnock criticised the EU's lack of speed in delivering assistance to Mozambique? Given the excellent response of his Department, will he join me in

appealing to the EU to give as much aid, in every sense, as it can, while remembering the greater need for long-term development?

Mr. Foulkes: I understand that the EU has already pledged 1 billion—[Interruption]—sorry, I almost increased the figure substantially; the EU has pledged 1 million euro for humanitarian assistance in Mozambique and is considering ways in which that sum can be increased. Contrary to the words of the Opposition, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the British Government are taking a lead in providing humanitarian assistance in Mozambique. I hope that other European countries will follow our example.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Last month, the Commission representative in London confirmed to me that aid programmes in Africa will show more cases of irregularity and fraud, that corruption is endemic, and that, when money is given directly to Governments, it is difficult to ensure that it is well spent. Despite that, last year, the Minister gave almost £1 billion of aid directly to foreign Governments, whereas only half that sum was delivered through non-governmental organisations, such as the British Council, the programmes of which have been slashed by his Department. Will he now admit that his policy has misfired and adopt the policies advocated by the Opposition to increase the use of NGOs and reinstate the British Council, which can deliver aid far more effectively than most Governments?

Mr. Foulkes: I am not sure how that question relates to the one on the Order Paper, but I can assure the hon. Lady, as I did in Committee this morning, that we are determined to ensure that the EU has procedures to prevent fraud and, if it does occur, to root it out. This morning, I gave the hon. Lady the example of the Côte d'Ivoire, where fraud was discovered and the money paid back. We do ensure that that takes place. Under the Labour Government, the delivery of assistance by the EU has improved year by year, and we aim to ensure that that progress continues.

Debt Relief

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the action taken by her Department to ensure that debt relief is linked with poverty eradication. [111176]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government contributed a paper to last year's review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, a copy of which is in the Library. We argued that, to qualify for debt relief, countries should develop a national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy should set out the Government's policies and actions to tackle poverty, and demonstrate how all resources will be allocated, including those arising from debt relief. Governments should consult their public and the international financial institutions in formulating the strategy, so that it commands broad-based support. I strongly support this approach, which was agreed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International


Monetary Fund in September, and is now being implemented. In this way, debt relief will help to achieve a stronger commitment to policies to reduce poverty.

Mr. Cunningham: Given the number of natural disasters, particularly that in Mozambique, what practical steps have been taken to help to restructure and rebuild those economies that have been affected; and can my right hon. Friend give some examples of poverty relief schemes?

Clare Short: Debt relief on its own cannot help countries to restructure their economies. It can remove the hangover of debt that prevents Governments from using their money well, and we can give such countries further support to help them to manage their economies better. In Mozambique, we have a crisis and we need to save lives, but there will be a massive reconstruction effort. The reduction of poverty requires good macro-economic management to attract domestic and inward investment to help the economy to grow; children need to be educated and basic health care needs should be met. The poverty reduction strategies that are developing alongside debt relief will help to achieve such policies.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Under the HIPC2 initiative, Mozambique was due to qualify for more debt relief this year, but that would only have reduced its debt service bill to $62 million a year, which would still have been more than its total spending on health and education. That fact, combined with the destruction of its infrastructure due to the floods, means that it will be years before Mozambique ever reaches the level that it was at even two weeks ago. Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that she will press the international community to strengthen long-term aid for Mozambique and press for immediate 100 per cent. debt cancellation?

Clare Short: As we said on Monday, Mozambique has been a star reformer since the end of the civil war, and that is admirable for one of the poorest countries on earth. The present crisis is a tragedy because it has been driving its economy forward. However, at the moment, it has big reserves because its Government's capacity to spend is so weak. We must get it through this crisis. Yes, it must have its full debt relief and the debt overhang must be removed. As the hon. Lady knows, Britain is committed to 100 per cent. debt relief, for which Mozambique has qualified. It will repay no more money to the UK, and yesterday the Chancellor pressed other Governments to do the same. After the immediate crisis in Mozambique, the big job will be to help with the reconstruction when it will draw down on many of its reserves, but it will need more support.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the rapid response of sending two plane loads of small boats to Mozambique. Does she agree that, while, of course, corruption must be rooted out for the good of those who suffer poverty, it can far too easily be used as an excuse by those mean people who do not want to give money to good causes and simply refuse to cough up?

Clare Short: I agree that we must find ways of helping. In countries with grave corruption we should not allow

the poor who are the victims of that to become victims twice over by denying them help from the international community. The poor pay the price for corruption in the loss of economic development and by having to pay bribes for basic services. We must root out corruption to obtain faster development and eradicate poverty, and the international community is now, at last, addressing that.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Last week, when the International Development Committee visited Malawi—one of the poorest countries—the Finance Minister told us that with HIPC, for which the country does not yet qualify, it would receive a reduction in capital repayments and interest on its indebtedness of only $30 million. Therefore, the reduction per year would be from $120 million to $90 million, which is insufficient. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that HIPC is generous enough and that, when there are savings, those will be concentrated on poverty reduction in the spheres of health and education?

Clare Short: It is my view that the enhanced HIPC, which will cancel $100 billion of debt—the highly indebted poor countries have $145 billion of debt—is about right. Countries have to be responsible about their borrowing, but HIPC will reduce it to reasonable proportions. Malawi is a desperately poor country, which inherited limited capacity from a dictatorship. The United Kingdom has a large and growing programme. My view is that HIPC2 is the right balance. Beyond that, we should help countries to get their debt down to manageable proportions and to drive forward by borrowing wisely and receiving aid, not focusing on ever-increasing amounts of debt relief. HIPC is about right and we should speed up implementation.

Kosovo

Mr. Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the progress made by UK non-governmental organisations funded by her Department in rebuilding the education system in Kosovo. [111177]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our main support to education in Kosovo has been through the United Nations children fund—UNICEF. We made £2 million available to UNICEF as soon as the refugees had begun to return, most of which was allocated to educational support. That helped UNICEF to get 75 per cent. of school-age children back in school by 1 November 1999—the figure is now 85 per cent.—which is a considerable achievement given the widespread destruction of buildings and the fact that, from 1990 on when the Albanian language was banned in schools, the state school system crumbled. We also provided £600,000 to KFOR to support emergency repairs to school buildings.

Mr. Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging response. I also pay tribute to the work that she has done along with UNICEF. Does she agree that, in the sort of environment that exists in Kosovo, education


is essential? It gives the children stability and teaches them the value of tolerance, which will be essential for the rebuilding of the various communities in the region.

Clare Short: I agree. Many people who comment on Kosovo have now forgotten the build-up. For 10 years before the conflict, Albanian teachers were expelled from schools, the children could not speak their language in schools and they did not have a normal education system within which Serb and Albanian children met. Now, it is difficult because of the bitterness. We are trying to reconstruct a normal school system within which children will learn to treat each other as equals. That is important.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is the Secretary of State aware that of the 300,000 school children in education in Kosovo, fewer than 0.3 per cent. are of Serbian extraction, which demonstrates that almost all Serbian families with children to protect have left the province? That shows that the product of our policy there will be an ethnically pure Kosovo of Albanians only.

Clare Short: I agree that those matters are a worry, but no one should be surprised. Ten years of persecution of Albanian-speaking people before the conflict and all the killing have led to bitterness. It is crucial that we stand up for the principle of equal treatment, as KFOR is doing. We are inching forward, but the situation is bad because the seeds of bitterness and hatred have been sown for 10 years and, sadly, it takes time to put that right. We are doing our very best.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: In welcoming the excellent work of UNICEF in Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend also warmly welcome the launch today of its Growing Up Alone Campaign, which, in the next 18 months, aims to improve dramatically the lot of children throughout the world who face the problems of poverty, war and AIDS-HIV?

Clare Short: We welcome the campaign. We work strongly with UNICEF in trying to develop policies that reach all children, not only some children, and that is the way in which UNICEF is moving. That campaign is focusing, for example, on child soldiers and AIDS orphans—children who have no one to protect them. We should be particularly responsible for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
I should like to pass on the condolences of Labour Members to the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative Members on the tragic deaths of the

Member for Romsey, Michael Colvin, and his wife. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time.

Mr. Pike: I endorse the Prime Minister's comments on Mr. and Mrs. Colvin. I am sure that all hon. Members associate themselves with those comments.
In the week when the Labour party celebrates its centenary, and when we have a Government who are so keen on combating and eliminating poverty in the United Kingdom, is the Prime Minister not ashamed of banks' plans to charge customers for using cash machines? Does not the fact that the Nationwide is prepared to impose a lower charge demonstrate that mutuality is better and that we should have stayed with building societies? What are the Government going to do to address the issue?

The Prime Minister: First, I share my hon. Friend's concerns. However, it is important that we should try to establish the facts. There are indeed legitimate concerns: in particular, we need to know how such charges might impact on pensioners and lower-income customers, and what assessment has been made of the impact on small rural communities, where there may be only one cashpoint. We shall also be receiving shortly Don Cruickshank's report on banking efficiency and competition, which examines some of those issues.
I also remind the House that, today, the Competition Act 1998 comes into force. It will give Britain one of the toughest competition regimes in the world, with new powers to crack down on cartels and other anticompetitive practices that harm the consumer.

Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the Opposition for his kind remarks on last week's tragedy and the death of Michael and Nichola Colvin. Michael Colvin was a fine Member of Parliament, and Nichola Colvin was a wonderful lady. The whole House is absolutely united on that.
Last night, the Prime Minister said:
clinical need is supposed to determine whether people are treated or not. If that is not happening, that is wrong.
Can the Prime Minister assure the House that doctors never have to distort clinical priorities to meet the Government's waiting list target?

The Prime Minister: The actual guidance that we issued—it is important that we repeat it—states:
clinical priority must be the main determinant of when patients are seen as outpatients or admitted as inpatients.

Mr. Hague: What seems to happen in practice under the Government's waiting list initiative is quite different. The chairman of the British Medical Association said:
The Government is obsessed with waiting list targets that distort clinical priorities to the detriment of patient care.
Yesterday, Dr. Wilde, from Bristol, told the Prime Minister that the
crisis in heart surgery was deepening,
and that treating urgent cases first would save lives.
We also read stories such as that of the man who died after waiting 72 weeks for a heart bypass. If clinical need was paramount, how could those things happen? Will the Prime Minister accept that the waiting list initiative,


as implemented by the Government, is distorting priorities, and that we need a policy on waiting lists in which the patients who most need treatment are treated first?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the principal problem with waiting and heart disease and heart operations is the shortage of heart and cardiac specialists and specialist nurses. That is why we now have 400 extra cardiac specialists in training, which will deliver by 2005—of course it takes time to train them—a 50 per cent. increase. That is a significant increase.
In relation to the Bristol Royal infirmary, which is where Dr. Wilde practises, additional funding will allow seven high-dependency beds to open in October 2000. That, too, will be of some assistance. The new cardiac centre in Plymouth also will help.

Mr. Hague: Is it not a fact that priorities are distorted? Is it not time that the Prime Minister gave all the facts? I have here the briefing that the Department of Health sent to No. 10 for Prime Minister's questions a few weeks ago. [Interruption.] Labour Members should listen, because the Prime Minister does not read it out. Under the heading "No. 10 Briefing for PM Questions" its fact number one is:
At the end of September 1999 there were 264,000 more patients waiting over 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment than at the end of March 1997.
We have asked the Prime Minister several times for that information, but he never reads it out. We now know that the civil servants give him the facts, but he does not read them out because he dare not do so in the House. Is he not in danger of being the polaroid Prime Minister who turns up for photocalls at hospitals, but does not listen to what is happening and blames doctors and managers and now the media? Is it not time that he took the blame and made sure that clinical priorities are dealt with first? Otherwise he really will be all mouth and no delivery.

The Prime Minister: First, on cardiac services, the national service framework is being published on Monday. I have pointed out the number of extra cardiac surgeons in training. Nobody disputes that there are problems that need to be sorted out, but we are taking action to sort them out: the £21 billion extra investment, all the accident and emergency departments being renovated, 37 new hospitals—the largest capital programme ever—4,000 more nurses, 2,000 more doctors, a 60 per cent. increase in cancer specialists, NHS Direct, the new primary care groups, which handle three times the budget of the old two-tier fundholders, and half a million more operations. That is not to say that there are not still many other problems to be sorted out, but we are trying to sort them out. The difference is that we see those problems as a reason for action. The right hon. Gentleman sees them as an excuse for undermining the health service in principle.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I welcome the steps taken this week to boost volunteering, but will my right hon. Friend accept that, particularly in less prosperous areas such as South Yorkshire, the networks set up to support volunteering can be successful

only if they are properly funded? Will he also assure me that employers will be encouraged to allow staff to do voluntary work without it affecting their pay or prospects?

The Prime Minister: We are already funding the millennium volunteers scheme. I want to see how we can do more to give opportunities to people who want to volunteer. I also entirely accept my hon. Friend's comment that employers can do more. A number of major companies intend to embrace the scheme to allow their staff to take a paid day off once a year to work in the voluntary sector. I intend to do that myself, both as an individual and as an employer, with people in Downing street and the Cabinet Office able to take a minimum of one day's paid leave a year to do voluntary work. I hope that many will take up that opportunity throughout the country.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I associate my colleagues and myself with the proper expressions of condolences to the Colvin family for the truly terrible experience that they have endured. I also take this opportunity to welcome back warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). We are all very pleased to see him restored to his parliamentary duties. He has told me of the case of his constituent, Mr. Bob Howes, who has suffered two heart attacks, yet he is still waiting an inordinate length of time for the cardiac treatment that he needs. Dr. Wilde's remarks have been well reported. Is it not a deplorable state of affairs, three years into a Labour Government, with all the expectations that were generated at the general election, that he is citing the fact that 10 of his patients have died who could have been saved had the medical procedures been available?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) back to the House of Commons, as we all do. I am delighted to see him back here.
In relation to waiting for heart surgery, there is no doubt that this is a serious problem, although it is always as well, in the interests of balance, to point out that some 46,000 operations are carried out. It is precisely for that reason that we need to deal with the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the absence of sufficient specialist nurses and specialist surgeons. That can only be cured, I am afraid, over time. That is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Kennedy: Does it remain the Prime Minister's intention over five years to get health spending in this country up to European levels? If so, does he believe that the tax cut in April will assist that process? Does he not acknowledge that the pledge that he and his party were elected on was to save the NHS before cutting tax? Is it not the case that we are getting tax bribes from the Government instead of saving lives from the Government?

The Prime Minister: The £21 billion is extra money for the national health service. It is also infinitely more than the Liberal Democrats have ever promised. Indeed, we have already put more money into the health service than the Liberal Democrats promised. The plain fact of the matter is that yes, we can get additional money into the health service if we manage the economy properly.


It is important that we do that, which is why we have pursued policies that have given us 800,000 extra jobs in the economy, that have given us the best record on inflation of any European country and that have managed to cure the appalling debt that we inherited from the Conservatives. If we followed the recipe set out by the Liberal Democrats, and spent and spent and spent without any idea of where the money came from, we would not be able to maintain the funding in the consistent way that the country needs.

Ms Oona King: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have never started a question by congratulating him? Is he further aware that I have to break the habit of a parliamentary lifetime due to the astonishing work being done by himself, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in combating world poverty? Given that Britain is spearheading the relief effort in Mozambique, and given the scale of that catastrophe, which I saw for myself a few days ago, will the Prime Minister or Members of his Government undertake to contact Heads of State in the European Union and, indeed, President Clinton, so that our allies take the lead that we have taken in saving lives around the world?

The Prime Minister: We are certainly in touch with our allies. I am sure that the whole House will be appalled by the terrible scenes in Mozambique. We have now found and chartered five more helicopters locally, making, I think, a total of nine. We are sending two large transport aircraft with 69 inflatable boats and motors, 39 self-inflating rafts and Land-Rovers, and there is a team of 30 expert volunteers going with this equipment. We are also sending more shelter material and sheeting. The United Kingdom has, in fact, already committed £4.2 million to help people in Mozambique. That is more than any other country, but it is what is necessary, and we hope that other countries will join in with the effort.

Mr. John Butterfill: Could the Prime Minister confirm the rumour that is circulating in the House that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is resigning as Labour's candidate for London mayor?

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot.

Mr. David Stewart: The Prime Minister will be aware that more than 1.5 million people in this country suffer from diabetes. It is the main cause of blindness in the under-65s, and half of lower limb amputations are because of diabetes. Does the Prime Minister share my view that the decision today to make pen needles free on prescription will benefit the 400,000 diabetics who inject insulin and will continue our battle against a condition that kills, maims and blinds?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done as secretary of the all-party group on diabetes. This is an issue, as he says, that affects more than 1 million people. We take the burden of diabetes very seriously. I am therefore delighted that from today,

people who treat their diabetes with insulin will be able to get pen needles and reusable pens on prescription from their GP.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What would the Prime Minister say to my constituent, Mr. Thomas of Loughton, who faced the choice of either a long and dangerous—[Interruption.] I do not know what was funny about my constituent. It is a tragic case. What would the Prime Minister say to Mr. Thomas, who faced the choice of either a long and dangerous wait for a heart bypass operation or spending his life savings so that he could have the operation more quickly? At the same time, the health authority was carrying out many minor operations. Today, the Prime Minister has been glib with his statistics. Does not he realise that, in the real world, people like Mr. Thomas know that clinical priorities are being distorted just to make the Prime Minister's waiting list statistics look better?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I do not know the individual case of the hon. Lady's constituent. As I have said, the only way to deal with these matters is to deal with the root of the problem—insufficient specialists and insufficient specialist nurses to carry out those operations. I hope that she will agree that what is necessary in the health service is additional investment. I hope, therefore, that she will also agree that any political party that had the policy of cutting taxes before anything else would have the wrong priority for the country. The one group of people who cannot say that they would do more for people in the health service are the Conservative party.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the massive hospital building programme that has gone on since he came to office. In fact, he has given the go-ahead for 37 new hospitals at a cost of £3 billion. Is he aware that the first hospital to be completed will be the new Cumberland infirmary in my constituency? We waited 20 years for that hospital under the previous, Conservative Government. Will he join me in congratulating all the staff involved in the construction and design of the building? I understand that it will be delivered 13 weeks early and on budget; that is probably a first for the NHS. Does he agree that that is another example of the Government delivering for the NHS?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend campaigned for many years for that hospital. It is worth pointing out that, although about £30 million was spent on consultancy fees under the previous Government, not a single hospital was built under the private finance initiative. This is the first acute private finance hospital to be completed; it is on time and on budget. It will provide a state-of-the-art hospital with more than 400 beds for the people of Carlisle and the surrounding area. However, we know that in many other parts of the country the same thing is wanted. We shall get there and deliver them their hospitals too.

Mr. William Hague: Which of the Labour candidates for mayor of London supports the Government's policy on the tube?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should allow me to run the Labour party and he can run the Conservative party.

Mr. Hague: This is a question about the Government's policy. Which of the Labour candidates for mayor of London supports the Government's policy on the tube?

The Prime Minister: The policy on the tube has been well set out and is, in fact, supported; it is the policy that will be carried through. I repeat that I will take care of running the Labour party and the right hon. Gentleman can run the Conservative party.

Mr. Hague: So the answer is that there is no Labour candidate who supports the Government's policy on the tube. Was not it all summed up by the Labour spokesman? He said:
Basically, Frank can say what he likes about the tube, but the policy is the policy.
Then he added:
Of course, Frank's going to be his own man.
Did not the Deputy Prime Minister say that unless a candidate agrees to support the party manifesto, he cannot stand as a Labour candidate? Now that the official Labour candidate is not going to support the Prime Minister's policy, is he going to change the policy or is he going to impose a new candidate?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman says about the policy is nonsense. The real difference is between the Labour party, which supports a public-private partnership, and the Conservative party, which will privatise the whole tube system. People know, if they vote for the Conservative candidate, that the same privatisation that happened with the railways will happen with the tube. That is not the case with us.
I repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he look after the problems of running the Conservative party. I notice that, as there has been a lot of talk about independent candidates, he has decided to appoint an independent as his shadow Chancellor.

Miss Anne Begg: I have just returned from being a patient who received excellent care and attention in two NHS hospitals, so I have to pay tribute to the hard-working staff—both medical and non-medical—of ward 9B of Aberdeen royal infirmary and of ward 10 of Woodend hospital. Will my right hon. Friend promise me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that all NHS patients get the excellent care that I received? Will he also continue the Government's policy of making sure that there are above inflation increases in the wages of all NHS staff?

The Prime Minister: We will certainly do that. First, in relation to NHS staff, we have now got the large starting pay increase for new nurses and that has resulted in a 25 per cent. increase in the numbers taking nursing degrees. Of course, the number of nurses in training was cut before we came to office under the previous Government. Secondly, the almost 8 per cent. increase for grade E nurses will mean that more than 60,000 of them

will get a decent pay increase. I can tell my hon. Friend that 4,500 extra nurses have come back to the health service since we began our recruitment campaign.
My hon. Friend is right. There are many problems in the health service that we need to deal with. However, as I said yesterday and repeat today, we need a sense of balance. The vast majority of people get treated very well in the health service; we have fine staff in the health service who treat them well. For example, 99 per cent. of operations are carried out on time. That is no excuse for the 1 per cent. that are not, but it is simply a plea to get balance in the debate. If we carry on with both the reform and the money, we will improve the health service and make it once again what it should be, but failed to be under the previous Government: the pride of Britain and the envy of the world.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Prime Minister say why council tax payers should have to pay more to house the nation's asylum seekers?

The Prime Minister: In fact, we provide help to local authorities that face the pressures of asylum seekers and we are trying to make sure that, in circumstances where they face additional costs, we do what we can.
Of course, the problem is the asylum system. That system requires fundamental reform. That is why we are introducing a new system from April this year in which cash payments are limited simply to £10 a week and people do not get the old benefits payments that they used to get under the system that the hon. Gentleman's Government introduced. We are now imposing a penalty of £2,000 on hauliers carrying illegal entrants. Those measures will help us separate bogus asylum seekers from genuine asylum seekers. The measures have one other thing in common: both were opposed by the Conservative party.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Beach Radio, a local radio station that serves the far eastern part of East Anglia, including my constituency? If he had been able to listen to Beach Radio yesterday, he would have heard our local hospital, the James Paget hospital, announce that it had just taken on 20 new nurses. In the millennium period the hospital said that it was managing extremely well, it is on course to meet its waiting list reduction targets at the end of this month and it is having a £700,000 refit of its accident and emergency service. Is that not proof on the ground that the NHS is being rebuilt, unlike under the Conservative party, which would just privatise it?

The Prime Minister: Of course that is precisely what the Conservatives intend to do. They want to force all people who have conditions that are not serious or life threatening to go for treatment outside the national health service. That is absolutely wrong and we will not go down that path at all.
On new nurses, it is important that we recruit extra nurses and that we retain them. It is important that we invest in accident and emergency departments, but it is important also that we reform the system. By the end of this year, at least 2 million people will be able to get a booked appointment without any system of waiting at all. In time,


we will have to extend that throughout the health service. If we recruit the right staff, make use of the best technology and have proper co-operative partnerships between the various players in the NHS, we can radically improve the whole concept of waiting lists and waiting times.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In the spirit of good will, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) on being elected to the House for the first time 50 years ago and serving his constituency since then? I know that my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that in the past two and a half years the number of operational officers in the Metropolitan police has been reduced by 793. What hope is there that in the next two and a half years the trend will be reversed, let alone the number increased? Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I remind him that under the previous Government, Metropolitan police numbers went up from just under 22,000 to more than 28,000.

The Prime Minister: I understand that from March 1992 the figure fell by 2,000. As a result of the additional money that is now being put into the crime fighting fund, we can start to recruit extra officers. I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He has been not only an outstanding politician and leader in this country, but an outstanding parliamentarian. The whole House is delighted to welcome him here today and to pay tribute to him.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the viewing figures for the ITN news at 11 pm are much lower than they were when the news was at 10 pm? Will he join me in calling on ITN to review its decision and to put the news back to 10 pm, to restore the national institution that we all loved?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's views on that issue, and I know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will take evidence on it later this week. Although this is obviously a matter for the Independent Television Commission, I liked "News at Ten" and I had concerns about the likely consequences of moving it, as did many Members, and I am afraid that those concerns have been largely borne out by what has happened since. "News at Ten" had developed an important place in our national life, and I fear that the decision to move it eroded that position, so I very much hope that ITN will think again.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words about Stockport council's crime and disorder fight. Will he instruct the Home Secretary to make available the £335,000 required to implement the strategy to which he gave great praise?

The Prime Minister: I am taking urgent instructions from the Home Secretary, but I think that a bid has gone in to the relevant fund that finances those projects. Far be it from me to admit that I did not know the answer, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Bob Russell: With a cheque.

The Prime Minister: I shall not say that the cheque is in the post. I shall say simply that the decision is with the Home Secretary.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is now a year since the royal commission on long-term care policy, which was chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland, reported its conclusions and recommendations? Since the problems addressed by that report are still very much with us and are a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend give an indication of the Government's response to the report's recommendations?

The Prime Minister: The Government's deliberations on the report have taken some time, because of its importance. Also, there are obvious cost implications that must be examined and worked through. My hon. Friend will be able to see the results fairly shortly. We are well aware that it is a major issue that must be considered in the context of the health service as a whole.
One of the other problems of management in the health service is to ensure that we have the proper system of long-term care in place so that the acute beds that are needed for acute care in the health service are occupied by people who must have them. We are trying to make sure that any proposals that we produce on long-term care tie in with what we are doing with community hospitals and social services, to make sure that we have adequate levels of care for everyone. That is why I say, once again, yes, there is a problem of finance, but we also need to change the system under which that money is used.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When the Prime Minister last answered questions, he informed the House that there had been a fall in the number of midwives under the previous Government. The Health Minister subsequently confirmed that actually the figures increased by 7,760. In the past, there would have been four occasions when Back Benchers could have challenged the Prime Minister on that inaccuracy. Will he clarify the situation now?

The Prime Minister: I understand that during the previous Parliament, the number of midwives did fall. If that is wrong, I am happy to correct it. There has undoubtedly been a 79 per cent. increase in the numbers registering for midwifery as a result of the changes introduced by the Government. That is in addition to the additional numbers of nurses now registering for nursing degrees and the extra nurses in the health service. There can be no dispute about the overall direction. When we came to office, we inherited a situation where the number of nurses in training was cut, and we are now putting extra resources into the health service.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

SCHOOL CROSSINGS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Michael J. Foster presented a Bill to amend the law relating to school crossings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 75].

Telecommunications Masts (Development)

Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the development of telecommunications masts in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Mr. Bercow, I know that you have a very good voice that carries, but please wait a moment. Will hon. Members leaving please do so quietly and quickly? We have an hon. Member on his feet.

Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mobile phones are here to stay. There are now 24 million subscribers in the UK, the business turns over £6 billion a year, and more than 20,000 base stations exist across the country, including no fewer than 40 in my Buckingham constituency. Furthermore, the industry confers real benefits in terms of economic efficiency and personal convenience.
Nothing in the Bill that I advance today seeks to hamper the legitimate growth of that industry, or would, in my assessment, be likely to do so. However, the House will recognise that there is widespread concern on both health and environmental grounds about mobile telephones in general, and the frenetic proliferation of masts in particular.
That concern has been reflected in the House, since the general election, in 96 written parliamentary questions, five oral questions, four early-day motions—notably that of the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), which has so far attracted 168 signatures—and three Adjournment debates, the most recent of which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 18 January this year in Westminster Hall.
I referred to anxieties about the threat to human health. The Government contend that there is no conclusive proof of a threat to health. Nevertheless, studies undertaken in Australia, Poland, Sweden and the United States have raised the spectre of dizzy spells, fatigue, headaches, memory loss, skin irritation, damage to the immune system, brain damage and cancer.
Anxiety about those conditions is such that, in the United States, no fewer than 39 states have so far decided to prevent any further erection of mobile telecommunications masts pending the generation of greater confidence in the technology, while in Australia a ban has been imposed on the erection of such masts fewer than 500 m from homes, hospitals and schools.
The House will also be conscious of the widespread anxiety about the threat to, above all, children under the age of 12, whose brains are not fully developed, whose skulls are less resistant to radiation, and who are therefore more susceptible to the damage to health that might be entailed.
I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate my legitimate anxiety on behalf of parents—not least Mrs. Lyn Pasqua—of children at the Acorn pre-school nursery in Winslow. It should be noted that there has been a telecommunications base station in an adjoining building for two years.
A distinguished academic, Dr. Gerard Hyland of the physics department of the university of Warwick, maintains that there is a possible threat to human health from the non-thermal impact of radiation.
In the light of those concerns, I make just two requests of the House at this stage. The first is that the National Radiological Protection Board should be instructed to study the possible non-thermal impact on health; the second is that the House should undertake to debate fully, at the appropriate time, the reports that will in due course be forthcoming from the United Kingdom childhood cancer study, from the NRPB's independent expert group on mobile phone technology, from the European Commission's expert group on mobile phones, and from the World Health Organisation' s international project on electromagnetic field radiation. These are all important concerns, and we need to consider and respond responsibly to them.
The nub of the problem, however, derives from the planning policies that apply in this country. I make the point on no party-political basis whatever—the matter is far too serious, and we know that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about it—but the fact is that planning policy guidance note 8 contains a presumption in favour of development. Under that note, it is expected that local authorities, in responding to applications from licensed operators, will do so positively and without questioning the need for the erection of new masts.
That difficulty for the environment is compounded by the fact that, under paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, a general permission is conferred on licensed operators to erect new masts, subject to the caveat that they should be less than 15 m high and should not be situated in areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, national parks or sites of special scientific interest.
Apart from that, the position for the local community and its elected representatives is very difficult. The councils have only a short period in which to object, meagre grounds on which to do so, and, judging by the record, limited success in the process. The effect of the arrangements, whatever their intention, has been to give a green light to companies such as Orange plc to ride roughshod over the wishes of local residents in the village of Long Crendon in my Buckingham constituency, where the company proposes to erect a new mast a mere 130 m from the boundary of the local school—with scant, if any, serious consultation with the local community that will thereby be affected.
Despite the company's advertising slogan, "Find out what people want: give it to them", and its explicit commitment to open dialogue, I am sorry to say that indifference, disdain and contempt have been the hallmarks of the company's treatment of my constituents. They are fighting back. Mrs. Penny Garrett, Mrs. Jean Gower and Councillor Mrs. Cecile Irving-Swift believe that such behaviour is unacceptable. It will not do, and it needs to change. The only light on the horizon is that a public meeting will take place, courtesy of an agreement with Mr. Richard Rumbelow, the organisation's sensible public affairs manager.
The rules that were appropriate for generating a national network need radical adjustment because such a network now exists. Respect must be shown for the


environment, human safety and the tranquillity of communities. That is why we should amend planning policy guidance note 8 to ensure that proper account is taken of community concerns. Full planning permission for masts on greenbelt land, listed buildings, wildlife sites, and sites near areas already protected by law is urgently needed.
Full planning permission is also needed for sites near homes, schools and hospitals. It should be obligatory for mobile phone operators to provide one or two-year plans to local councils detailing their mast intentions; it would thus be possible for councils to know what was sought and to assess its validity.
More encouragement of mast sharing is required through linking it more integrally with the planning process. We should examine cross-network roaming and the opportunities for greater convenience and ease of use for consumers that that would entail. We need an acceptable method of ensuring that masts are sympathetically blended into the environment in which they are situated.
The proposals that I have outlined are practical, constructive and forward looking. They will enjoy widespread support in the country. Confident in that knowledge, I appeal to the House for its backing for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mrs. Marion Roe, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Phil Willis.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the development of telecommunications masts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 76].

Standards and Privileges

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 260); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Member for Billericay, from the service of the House for one month.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I want to begin by saying how sorry I am that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suffered a serious health problem when he collapsed recently. I am happy to say that he is mending. He has been extremely helpful and courteous to me as the events that we are considering have developed.
I want, for my constituents and my friends on both sides of the House, to try to put matters in context because the report is long, complex and often contradictory.
The complaints deal with events from 10 to 15 years ago, before I even entered Parliament. We all lead busy lives in our job, and I had long pushed many of the events that we are considering to the back of my memory. In my initial discussions with the commissioner, I tried to answer her questions about events of long ago from memory. I do not consider that the answers that I gave her were dishonest, but I admit that some were very muddled. My explanation for that is that memory is sometimes mixed and failing after so long a period.
I accept, of course, that, as a Member of the House, I must deal with allegations made by newspapers or members of the public, but I was quite clear in my own mind that these allegations related to my husband's interests and that I had no beneficial interest in them. That is why I had not initially declared them in the Register of Members' Interests. They were originally raised in 1994 and dealt with by the former Committee, which dismissed them. They were then resurrected, in addition to other matters, by The Independent newspaper.
I strongly resent the amount of intrusion on my husband's life. He is not one of us and is—or at least was, once upon a time—a very private person. He is not in the public eye in the way we are here. I cannot find a single example of a Member who recorded a spouse's job, assets or financial affairs in the register. That may change because, in the post-Nolan period, we live in a completely different ambience in relation to the register. Nowadays, one is in danger of being in difficulty if one does not register having a doughnut at some entertainment or other.
The register says that
the scope of the Register seeks to balance on the one hand what should be publicly known about Members and on the other, the proper degree of privacy to which they and their families are entitled. They are not required to disclose the interests of spouses or children.
Much of the inquiry, and certainly its length, represents, to some extent, an attempt to link me to my husband's property and therefore to justify a complaint that I failed to declare an interest when I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1990—10 years ago. If I had thought that I had an interest to declare, why would I not have entered that


interest? If I had something to hide, why would I have presented the Bill in the first place? Clearly, in my own mind I did not have an interest to declare and everyone in the House knows that ten-minute Bills are mainly a way of airing a point of view. In this case, I was airing a point of view that I had formed as a result of being a member of the housing committee of a local council on which I saw the problems of housing through the eyes of those young people who were trying to find accommodation, particularly in the private sector. That was my reason for introducing the Bill.
The report says that I failed to co-operate with the commissioner. That is untrue. I dealt, in great detail, with almost 30 letters from the commissioner—many of them relating to long-forgotten events—until I was forced to take legal advice. At that stage, my solicitors called a halt because they considered by then that the inquiries had little or nothing to do with the original complaints. Far from my failing to co-operate, the commissioner wrote to me on 22 July 1999 to say that
I do appreciate the effort and time you are putting into answering my inquiries and I very much share your hope that I will be able to conclude them in the near future.
I have never sought to mislead the commissioner. I have admitted that my earlier answers to her may not have reflected a clear picture of the situation as to those properties, which are the focal point of the inquiry, but once I had obtained the advice and help of a solicitor I was able to discover the original documents, which backed my claim that I was not required to enter those assets in the register. I hope that the House will eventually adopt the recommendation of the Neill committee that Members who find themselves in a similar position should be given legal aid or advice to deal with matters in an orderly fashion. I repeat: we live in a completely different world from 10 years ago, before the Nolan report. In today's circumstances, it is imperative that people who are going to be involved in such a situation speak to a lawyer before they speak to anyone else.
These Benches are littered with barristers and solicitors. Most of them, I am sure, would not approve of the system that we have devised for ourselves. There is no independent judge, no independent jury, no defence counsel and no appeals system. All those are recommended in the Neill committee report for change. I hope that, when the Government introduce the Neill recommendations, colleagues will support them.
In the House, we are here not just to make laws, but to protect the rights of citizens to a fair trial before an independent judicial system. Although I am not criticising the Committee's decision, I believe that, in the long term, it is imperative that we adopt that procedure for our system in the House when we deal with complaints.
I hope, from my experience and from bringing it to the attention of the House, that we will draw some lessons from it. I can see in retrospect that I have handled matters less than satisfactorily. Of course I could have done better, but I draw the line at being called a liar, which the report states. I find that offensive, quite unnecessary and unreasonable.
I quote from an interview in The Daily Telegraph that was given by the commissioner, Ms Filkin, on her appointment to her present role. She said:
I am aware that all of us can make mistakes and look foolish. One can always reflect on how things could have been done better.
I rest my case.

Mr. Alan Williams: The House will well understand the reason why the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), cannot be here today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for her good wishes. I know that the good wishes of the whole House are with him for a speedy recovery. No one wishes more than I that he were here today, because he understands better than anyone—he has had to do it more often, sadly, from his point of view—how unpleasant it is to move to suspend a longstanding parliamentary colleague. It is not a pleasant experience. I suspect that I regret nearly as much as the hon. Lady the fact that we are in this situation.
I apologise to the House that I am going keep, as the hon. Lady did, rather closely to my remit and to my brief because of the complexity and the personal sensitivities of some of the issues involved.
I am here to ask the House to approve the fifth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on complaints against the hon. Lady, and its recommendation to suspend her for one month. That is the longest period of suspension that the Committee has ever recommended in its five years of existence. The sadness is that, as the report says, many of the complaints against the hon. Lady
could have been dealt with swiftly, and without the need for extensive inquiry, if she had co-operated properly.
I should remind the House of the findings of the commissioner and of the Committee and explain why the Committee decided unanimously—I must emphasise that—that such a serious penalty was justified.
The Committee upheld three complaints about registration and declaration of interests. The first is that the hon. Lady failed to register her interest in various properties in south London, which she owned jointly—it is not a point that she brought out in her comments—with her husband and which were let to tenants for rent between 1987 and 1994. Secondly, she failed to declare that interest when she introduced two ten-minute Bills about rented property. Thirdly, she failed to register her interest in an offshore trust. Several other complaints were made about properties in Portugal and Germany, but the Committee has dismissed those complaints.
The hon. Lady's failure to register would inevitably be a source of criticism in its own right. However, the Committee felt that the other complaints against her were far more serious. We upheld four further complaints. The first was that she provided seriously misleading and inaccurate information to the Registrar of Members' Interests, the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Committee itself. Secondly, she made false allegations against a member of the public. Thirdly, she improperly contacted a witness during the investigation. Finally, she failed to uphold the code of conduct for Members by not observing the principles—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Williams: No, I am sorry, but I will not.

Mr. Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Williams: I have said no. This matter is too serious for the playing of games.

Mr. Howarth: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: Let the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) carry on his Hamilton vendetta somewhere else.

Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has outrageously accused me of waging some kind of vendetta when I had sought only to obtain information. Can the right hon. Gentleman's words be accounted parliamentary?

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that tempers must cool. I quite understand why the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) wishes to put the Committee's case before the House. If the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) seeks to catch my eye during the course of the debate, I will try to call him.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Aldershot may want information, and I intend to give information. That is why I intend to stick closely to my brief.
The hon. Member for Billericay failed to uphold the code of conduct for Members by not observing its principles of honesty and accountability—principles at the centre of our debate. The Committee considered that her behaviour was a breach of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House. It is for that reason that the Committee recommended such a severe penalty.
Let me turn to the south London properties to which the hon. Lady referred. She implied that those properties belonged entirely to her husband. As long ago as 1995, allegations were made that the hon. Lady had owned properties in south London that were let to tenants for rent when she had sought, in 1990, to introduce a Bill to repeal the Rent Acts. There were further allegations that the properties had been sold to offshore companies with which she was connected.
The hon. Lady denied those allegations in the most unequivocal terms. In a letter to the Registrar of Member's Interests on 23 May 1995, she wrote:
It is not true either of the two properties were let to tenants in 1990/91 …
It is not true that I have any connection with an offshore company as alleged.
Four years later, in April 1999, the hon. Lady told the commissioner that there were no paying tenants in either house while she was the owner. Subsequent events have shown all those statements to be untrue.
Despite the allegations made against her in 1995, which led to lawyers being instructed, and despite the matters being raised again by the commissioner and the Committee in April 1999, it was not until June 1999 that the hon. Lady told the commissioner that each of the south London properties had, contrary to her previous assertions, been let to tenants until sold.
There were originally thought to be only two properties. It was not until the commissioner discovered that a third had been owned by the hon. Lady and her husband that

she revealed her connection with it. Only when she discovered that the commissioner was preparing to contact previous tenants of the south London property did she admit the existence of those tenants.
One of the papers in the case is a sworn statement from a man who said that he had rented a bedsit in one of the houses. The hon. Lady told the commissioner that neither she nor her husband owned property in which the man was ever a tenant, and that his sworn statement was false. She went further, and told the Committee that the statement had been
falsified for a cash payment.
That is a serious allegation; it is even more serious when a Member of Parliament makes it under the protection of parliamentary privilege, as the hon. Lady did. Later she had to admit that there was nothing in the statement that she knew to be false. She could produce no evidence of any cash payment. We concluded—the House must decide whether we were right—that her unfounded allegations were intended to mislead.
When the south London properties were sold, they were bought by offshore companies, and two flats in Portugal, used by the hon. Lady and her husband as holiday accommodation, were also owned by offshore companies; but all those companies were owned by the Queenstown Trust, itself an offshore discretionary trust, which was established in 1986 on the instructions of the hon. Lady and her husband. There was a network of offshore companies—although she denied any contact or connection with such companies—involved with the properties.
The hon. Lady was deemed to be the settlor of the trust. I had never come across that term before, but we have been assured that the settlor is the person who sets up the trust and provides it with assets. She asked the trustees to regard her husband as the prime beneficiary of the trust but that, should he die before her, she herself was to be regarded as the prime beneficiary. Again, that hardly fits the picture of someone with no connection with offshore companies.
Sadly, the Committee did not get any of that information from the hon. Lady herself. Eventually, we got it last November from the management of the offshore company, who insisted that we apply for it in writing. In April last year, she told the commissioner that she had never had any connection with the offshore companies that bought her properties, and as late as last July she wrote to the commissioner:
I confirm that my husband and I have no connection with off-shore companies.
I will not comment on that: it speaks for itself. The statement was simply untrue in relation to her husband and disingenuous at best in relation to herself.
The Committee expressed the opinion in our report that the hon. Lady's denials of any connection with offshore companies were intended to deceive. Again, the House must make its mind up whether we were right. She claimed in her evidence in January this year that she had no registrable or legal connection with offshore companies. That was not what she was asked about. She was asked about a completely different point. The commissioner and the Committee had asked whether, as alleged, she had any connection with offshore companies.
We were hoping for—it could have foreshortened the whole situation—a straightforward and honest answer. If the hon. Lady had been straightforward and open with the


commissioner and the Committee, she would have explained at the outset the nature of her connection with the Queenstown Trust and its connection with the other offshore companies, and not sought to conceal those connections as she did. I should like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 40 of the report. Its effect on all Members of Parliament is intended to be cautionary. It states:
Members should not seek to mislead by keeping information from the Commissioner on the ground that they do not themselves consider the interest to which it relates to be registrable. Many of the complaints against Mrs. Gorman could have been dealt with swiftly, and without the need for extensive inquiry, if she had co-operated properly. Mrs. Gorman should have been open and helpful in her dealings with the Commissioner at the time when the complaints against her were first made, especially where a number of these complaints rested on understandable assumptions about Mrs. Gorman's personal circumstances.
It is a sad feature of the inquiry that, with the possible exception of today, the hon. Lady has throughout been quick to assign blame to almost anyone but herself for the situation that has arisen. According to press reports, our Parliamentary Commissioner has been accused of bias. The Committee has been accused of
behaving like the Spanish Inquisition,
and, even more devastating, of being
a tool of the Labour Party spin-doctor industry.
I look at the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and I wonder whether the hon. Lady sees the same Committee that I see.
I am sorry to go on at length, but I was asked for information and I believe that the hon. Lady deserves to have the case spelled out in full. I hope that the House will allow me to continue and to consider the claims that the hon. Lady is reported to have made. She has claimed that the investigation went unnecessarily into her personal life. We did not want to investigate matters relating to her personal life. Members of the Committee recognise, as would any Member of Parliament, that Members have the same right as anyone else to privacy in their personal life and that that privacy should be protected wherever possible. We, as a Committee, would never want to intrude unnecessarily on any hon. Member's personal affairs.
Our problem however was that the hon. Lady's evidence to the Committee was founded on the proposition that, between 1986 and 1994, she and her husband were separated and she had no knowledge of and no involvement in his business activities. Her entire argument for non-registration rests on the personal and previously unpublicised agreement between herself and her husband. Her claim is that, according to a draft agreement dated 1986, she had no beneficial interest in the south London properties because, she claimed, although she remained the legal joint owner of the properties—the crucial admission—her husband was granted complete control over their use and disposal.
The commissioner and the Committee felt that that separation agreement made no difference. The hon. Lady admits that she continued to be the joint owner of the properties and the land registry entry still listed her as such. Furthermore, the Committee seriously doubted that the agreement had ever been put into practice. No formal deed of separation was ever executed; there was only a

draft. During the alleged separation, the flat in Portugal was acquired as a second home for the hon. Lady and her husband. The hon. Lady set up two companies with her husband as joint shareholder; he had only one share, but that is a normal arrangement. Throughout that time, the hon. Lady's husband was on the electoral register and on the community charge register for her Westminster home. The house in the hon. Lady's constituency, which she purchased in 1993, was registered in the joint names of the hon. Lady and her husband.
Perhaps one of the most convincing points, and the final one, was that the tax liability on the sale of one of the south London properties would, if what she has claimed was correct, have been met by her husband, but, in fact, the tax liability was met by one of the hon. Lady's companies.
Therefore, for the Committee—the hon. Lady may say that we have it wrong—the evidence was overwhelming. It took the view that, if the hon. Lady owned the properties, they should have been registered. After all, the main purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is
to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.
Given that the hon. Lady's arguments for non-registration rested on the document and the alleged separation of assets, the Committee could not in all conscience—I invite hon. Members who have not had a chance to read the evidence to do so—have omitted the evidence, however unhappy it was about disclosing elements of the hon. Lady's personal life. It was a defence that she used; it was a defence that either had to be accepted, or certainly had to be explored, and possibly had to be rebutted. In our case, we did not accept it.
As the Committee stated in its report,
The evidence about their separation is crucial to Mrs. Gorman's explanation for her actions, in particular her failure to register certain interests. Its omission would be misleading and would undermine the basis of this Report.
That evidence—I re-emphasise this—need never have been published if the hon. Lady had sought advice in the first place, and if she had registered the property as early as she could after she discovered that she had an interest.
The hon. Lady has claimed—she has repeated it today—that fresh allegations were raised during the course of the investigation which were not in the commissioner's original memorandum. Hon. Members are too busy to read everything in detail and the document is voluminous, but anyone who has read it will have noted that the Committee's conclusions mirror completely the commissioner's memorandum and do not raise any fresh allegations against the hon. Lady. I shall come in a moment to her knowledge and the nature of the allegations.
The hon. Lady has also said that she wants to appeal against our finding. It is important to emphasise that it is not the facts in the case that are in dispute—the facts, sadly, are clear—but the conclusions to be drawn from them and the propriety of the hon. Lady's behaviour in the course of the inquiry. It is beyond dispute that she remained joint legal owner of the three properties until they were eventually sold. It is beyond dispute that she is connected with the trust in the way described in the


Committee's report and as I have outlined. It is for the House to judge whether the hon. Lady has broken our rules, as the Committee believes that she has.
All the evidence that has been relied on in constructing the report has come from, or been confirmed by, the hon. Lady, her advisers or her business associates. We have therefore done everything we can to ensure that she has been treated fairly. However, and this is the most serious allegation, the hon. Lady questioned the fairness and impartiality of the commissioner and the Committee. Other Committee members who are not Labour Members may wish to say whether they think that she was dealt with fairly.
The hon. Lady made play of the recent report of the Neill committee, which makes proposals for the handling of disciplinary cases in the House. Obviously, the Standards and Privileges Committee and the House will have to study those proposals. Importantly, the report states that appeals should be allowed in serious cases—I regard this as such a case—in which facts are in dispute. I do not regard this as a case in which the facts are in dispute, other than by the hon. Lady. Anyone who reads the evidence is forced, however reluctantly, to that inexorable conclusion.
The fact remains that the Standards and Privileges Committee is a creature of this House: it set us up, gave us our remit and laid down the rules by which we have to decide. We can only work by the rules that are in force. Far from being as frivolously arrived at as the hon. Lady tried to suggest, the Committee is only five years old because it was set up in the light of the Nolan committee's recommendation. We have amended—we may not yet have got it right and I am open to discussion about that, as I think that we all are and have to be—but none the less we have done our best to meet what Nolan requested of the House.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has always been acutely aware of the need not only to be fair to the hon. Lady but to be seen to be fair. We bent over backwards in our attempts to do so. Uniquely, we provided the hon. Lady with a copy of the commissioner's memorandum, which is not our usual practice—I am sure that she will acknowledge that we did so—so that she could be fully aware not only of the evidence that the commissioner had received, but of the conclusions that the commissioner had arrived at and was putting before the Committee for it to discuss with her. We also wanted the hon. Lady to appreciate the seriousness of her position.
I hate to say this, but there were times when we doubted that the hon. Lady fully realised how serious her position was. We suggested that, in her own interests, she should take proper advice about how she should proceed. Indeed, when it came to taking oral evidence from her, although we started to consider the allegations made against her, and to her, in June, we agreed to her request to adjourn the hearing until mid-January to give her the time that she wanted to retrieve documents, take legal advice and prepare her arguments.
In January, the Committee received substantial written submissions from the hon. Lady and took oral evidence, which lasted most of a morning and the major part of an afternoon. Throughout those hearings, she was

accompanied by a solicitor, who was allowed to advise her. She and her solicitor subsequently had ample opportunity to correct the transcript of the minutes of the hearing and to clarify and comment on the evidence given, which they did at length. The Committee considered those corrections and comments at length.
As far as impartiality is concerned, I can only reiterate that the report before the House is unanimous. It was agreed after careful consideration by every member of the Committee, including two hon. Members from the same party as the hon. Lady. Perhaps it is not fair to single them out in that way, but I do so to reassure her colleagues. The independence of mind of those two hon. Members is well understood and respected throughout the House. Of course, I think that everyone would agree that the Chairman of the Committee is one of the most respected and fair minded people—there are not many of them—in the House.
Members of this House have a duty of accountability, under the code of conduct, to
submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
We have a duty of honesty to provide full and accurate information to the Parliamentary Commissioner and to the Committee. Sadly, the hon. Lady has fallen short of the standards that the House is entitled to expect. The way in which she responded to the complaint against her was both a breach of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House.
We believe that the House can uphold its standards only by imposing a substantial period of suspension on the hon. Lady. I ask the House to note that, as stated at paragraph 50 of our report—which also was unanimously agreed—the suspension would have been "considerably longer" were it not for the fact that we recognised the embarrassment and distress that inevitably would be caused to the hon. Lady by the publication of "sensitive personal information".
I ask the House to support the Committee and approve our report.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I should like to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I was asked if I would look very carefully at the Committee's report, and I have done so. I have also had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I stand here neither to condemn her, other than in the terms of the Committee's report, nor to make a plea in mitigation. I shall simply give my opinion on the way in which the Committee has conducted its affairs concerning my hon. Friend, and make one or two suggestions for the future. I do not want those suggestions to be thought in any way to be reducing the work of the Committee.
I have read the report very carefully. In my view, the Committee's proceedings were conducted fairly and properly according to our procedures, and the penalty—although undoubtedly severe—is within the range of penalty that reasonably is available to the Committee. Although I thought about it, I do not think that I would have done my hon. Friend a service if I had really considered tabling an amendment suggesting a shorter penalty.
I agree with the whole substance of the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in summarising the Committee's report. I believe that the report—the House would expect no less—is entirely accurate and balanced.
There is no doubt that, sadly, my hon. Friend—I know that she will understand this—has brought upon herself the great majority of what is said about her in the report. There is no doubt that a Member in that situation, from the very earliest moment, should first have consulted the registrar, and explained privately and exactly to the registrar the background facts. The Member should then have taken the advice of the registrar, who is extremely fair minded and helpful in these matters, on whether the matter was or was not registerable. Similarly, when the commissioner comes along, the Member should take exactly the same attitude.
To be fair to my hon. Friend, if she had done that, she would not really be in a difficult position at all. When it comes down to the basic facts, had the interests been registered, there is nothing very remarkable about them at all. There must be very many hon. Members who own let property, and many hon. Members who hold sincere views on either side of the argument on the Rent Acts in relation to which, 10 years ago, she introduced her ten-minute Bill.
The fundamental problem in this case has been the way in which my hon. Friend has sought to defend herself, and the extra difficulties that she has brought upon herself by the manner of her doing so.
I do not know my hon. Friend all that well as a private individual, but I respect her courage, as most of us do. We know that she is exceptionally combative. It is not just, as the old adage says, the lawyer who represents himself who has a fool for a client. It is very difficult to represent oneself when one is in a spot. Criticisms of a partly political nature inevitably intrude in our business and in the newspapers. Someone of a combative frame of mind can easily go in at the deep end and make matters worse for themselves, although not normally as badly as did my hon. Friend, who managed to go as far as possible and further, plumbing the depths in almost every respect.
To give some balance, there is one respect in which that is not necessarily the case. I do not criticise the Committee, but I have some doubts as to whether my hon. Friend's contact with a particular witness mentioned in the report was improper. I know that that is not a major part of the report, but if someone who is left to defend themselves wishes to speak to a witness, there is nobody else to do it. I say that only to ensure that I give as much balance as possible.
What is the point of my speech? It is simply to ask whether we should consider any reform of our procedures. I shall make some suggestions for further consideration, but I do not wish to deprecate what the Committee has done. I shall not oppose the penalty. According to our present procedures, the whole matter was conducted openly and fairly and I have no criticism to make. It was well done.
I emphasise that it is difficult to defend oneself. I have read what was said in the Neill committee and the report as well as the views of Lord Nicholls—a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary who took particular care to consider the issue. Most of his recommendations are not at all contentious. Everyone agrees that one should know at the outset

exactly what charges one has to meet. By and large that was true in this case, although I have one comment to make about that.
I should like to emphasise one point made by Lord Nicholls that deserves serious consideration. Many cases are not serious, but, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said, this one developed into a very serious case and is producing the most serious penalty for many years. In such serious cases, there is a strong argument for allowing legal advice and, when necessary, legal representation to be provided by the House. It is incredibly difficult to cross-examine and argue one's case and to give the facts at the same time. The two inevitably get muddled up. Very few people can do themselves justice in those circumstances.
Although we are right not to wish to become over-legalistic, not to over-encumber our procedures with legalism and lawyers and to maintain the maximum amount of self-regulation, we should reconsider our rule about entitling people to legal advice. Once the Committee considers that the case against an hon. Member is serious, as opposed to substantially administrative and routine, a halt should be drawn temporarily in the proceedings. The hon. Member concerned should be warned of the seriousness of the position, be invited to obtain legal advice—and given assistance in that if necessary—and be able not merely to have the legal adviser sitting beside them in the Committee, but to have some representation before the Committee. I think that doing that would improve our procedures.
This is a sad day. A difficult matter has been well handled according to our present procedures. The result is sad but not unjust, and there are improvements that we could make for the future.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Having read the whole report, I regard the penalty proposed by the Committee as disproportionately severe. I do not wish to make party political points of any kind, but there have been a number of cases of so-called sleaze on both sides of the House. One, not very long ago, was connected with a property matter. For us to be told that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is to be suspended for a longer period than anyone else for what she has irregularly done seems an unfairly severe penalty.
Outside the House, to be suspended without pay for a month does not seem a matter of great severity, but inside the House, even to be suspended for three days involves an element of public disgrace. If that sentence were imposed upon me, I would be deeply mortified. So we must not lose sight of the fact that a very severe penalty is being proposed for my hon. Friend. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), I wish—to use his words—to put in a plea of mitigation.
When I first came to the House, and for many years afterwards, we had none of these rules and tribunals. I have always taken the Enoch Powell line that it is very much better to treat each other as honourable people and not have a tremendous number of codes, commissions, and outside bodies looking into things. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues—particularly, I am ashamed to say, in my own party—behaved so disgracefully in the


previous Parliament that we were inevitably drawn into the present situation. There is no reversing that, and it is going to get worse. The thrust of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech was that we will gradually move away from the position of controlling our own affairs and hand it all over to judicial supervision.
Let us not lose sight of the object of the exercise, which has been to avoid the corruption of the House and of public affairs. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has sought to corrupt anybody. The offences of which she is accused, although technically correct, are of the utmost triviality. They happened a great many years ago, and she has never been secretive about her interest in property matters. Not long ago, for weeks on end, it was almost impossible to open a newspaper without seeing her defiantly trying to defend a charming gothic porch which she had added to one of her houses and which the philistines in her local planning committee wished to demolish. Everybody knows her views on rent restriction. There has never been any suggestion that she was being corrupted or that she was seeking to corrupt anybody else.
Then we come to the extended nature of the inquiries that were made of her. The discussion about overseas trusts, although not one of the criticisms of her in the report's conclusions, takes up quite a lot of space in the cross-examinations that are published. For the uninitiated, the mere mention of the words "overseas trust" raises the suspicion that some skulduggery is going on.
Unfortunately, I have never been the beneficiary of an overseas trust, but they are entirely legal. There are hundreds of thousands of them. If one visits a lawyer's office on any island in the Caribbean, he will proudly talk of the tens of thousands of overseas trusts that he runs from his little office—including those for some of the world's most famous companies and personalities. Whether such trusts should be more carefully supervised is another matter; they are legal.
One aspect of the report that seemed to throw an element of discredit on my hon. Friend related to the fact that her properties in Portugal were held in an overseas trust. However, it was legal for her to do so. Indeed, if one tries to buy a property overseas, one is invariably advised by one's lawyers—I have always taken the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and surrounded myself with the highest-paid lawyers before I do anything at all in life—to put such property in an overseas trust.
I have some overseas properties. I hasten to add that I have never let them to paying tenants. I have not put them into overseas trusts, because overseas trusts have two great snares. The first is that one has to trust one's trustees. The second is that one's family cannot always be relied upon to die in the order of precedence that one has laid down in the trust. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, as a criticism, that my hon. Friend had included her husband in that sequence. However, it would be automatic in an overseas trust. One's lawyer will say, "If you kick the bucket, old boy, it's going to be inconvenient for me if I don't know who is to inherit the properties." That criticism was thus irrelevant.
Why was that matter raised in the first place? Incidentally, the allegations against my hon. Friend came from two journalists, whose motives were not as closely

examined by the Committee as I should have expected. Their allegations related to English properties subject to the Rent Acts—that is what the whole matter is about. By no conceivable stretch of the imagination can it be thought that our Rent Acts apply to a holiday home in Portugal. That matter is irrelevant.
The report slowly turns into a trawling operation. The Committee began by looking into a specific situation. My hon. Friend has admitted to that matter, although she has denied throughout that she benefited from the English properties. The Committee then examined a series of aspects of her life—including her private life.
One part of the report that is offensive is the conclusion. It states not only that the period of suspension is the longest that the Committee had ever recommended, but that it would have been even longer but for the distress caused to my hon. Friend when the fact that her marriage temporarily went through a difficult patch was dragged into public knowledge. Such difficulties are not unknown to many Members on both sides of the House.
The Committee implied that the difficulty in my hon. Friend's married life—now happily overcome, I understand—was part of the punishment, because the punishment would have been longer if the matter had not been exposed. All that is deeply unsatisfactory.
The report does not bring out in any detail how much money it is alleged that my hon. Friend made out of the properties that she should have declared. It talks about a substantial sum and then refers to a figure of between £3,400 and £4,400 from the Portuguese properties. To someone on benefit, figures of £3,000 to £4,000 are substantial, but I warn people who might want to own and let an overseas property that they must spend £15,000 to £20,000 a year on running costs if they want to let it to tenants.
The owners have to pay the local property tax, which is substantial in most overseas countries. They have to pay for a maid if they want to let the property. When guests arrive after a flight and a long drive and are accompanied by screaming kids, they are absolutely exhausted. They expect to find the property in spotless condition and they expect to have a maid to look after them. That maid cannot be appointed for the week or fortnight that the property is let; she has to be appointed and paid for over 12 months.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What about a gardener?

Sir Peter Tapsell: If there is a garden, there must also be a gardener.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony? The whole question of the Portuguese properties was dismissed by the Committee, so he has no case.

Sir Peter Tapsell: I am not in any sort of agony—rather the reverse. The hon. Gentleman refers to one of the issues about which I am complaining. He says that the Committee dismissed the question of the Portuguese properties, but a considerable section of the published evidence in the report is about them. He is a long-serving and distinguished member of the Committee and he says that the issue was dismissed. Therefore, it was all a


mare's nest, but references to overseas trusts and the Portuguese properties were put before the public eye. That would lead people to suppose that my hon. Friend was involved in a carefully organised and fairly substantial overseas operation in which she avoided paying tax because she had an overseas trust.
I mentioned the issues of staff and tax, because the figure of £3,400 that the report quotes would have long since been swallowed up. The owners of overseas properties find that it is extremely difficult to make a profit out of them because of the overheads that I have described.
My hon. Friend's personality is an important part of the process. From my reading of the report, it seems that what really upset the Committee was not so much what she did, but the way she responded to the questioning to which she was subjected. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West mentioned the propriety of her responses, and my hon. Friend admitted in her speech that she was unwise in the way that she handled the affair and her defence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire spelt that out in technical terms and was right to do so. However, is it correct that my hon. Friend should be so severely punished because of that behaviour?
My hon. Friend is a combative and zany lady. I have known many such ladies in the course of my life, and indeed I rather like them. I particularly like my hon. Friend, who is a woman of courage, integrity and patriotism, with no malice in her at all. I do not believe that she has behaved in a shabby fashion, although I think that she has behaved unwisely, and I shall be proud to continue to regard her as my hon. Friend.

Mr. Martin Bell: There are times when I wonder whether all Members of the House live on the same planet.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for her outstandingly moderate and gracious speech in what must be difficult circumstances for her.
I regret the absence, through ill health, of the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He has conducted this investigation as he conducts all investigations—with outstanding fairness and rigour. I also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is fully living up to the demanding standards set by her predecessor.
As a member of the Committee who sits for no party on the Opposition Benches, it is important that I make the point that the Committee is not partisan; it is not Labour-dominated; it is not Labour-run; and it does not divide on party lines. If it did, I would not serve on it for five minutes—and neither, I am sure, would Opposition Members or Members on the Government Benches.
I know that objections have been raised in the press, and some journalists are suggesting that our procedures have become too rigorous. They are rigorous because they have to be, because we want this Parliament to be held in higher esteem than the previous Parliament. We owe that to ourselves, our constituents and the institution in which we sit.
The report is outstandingly fair, and I hope that the rest of the House will take the same view.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am exceedingly uneasy. I say to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), that when he said that it is difficult to represent oneself, he was wrong—it is impossible to represent oneself.
I say that with some passion because I was in the position of having to try to represent myself in the light of a privileges investigation into chemical and biological warfare, and my talking freely to the late Laurence Marks of The Observer a third of a century ago. I was not allowed to have a lawyer present. When one appears before the Committee and one is not a lawyer, it is impossible to try to defend oneself, especially if one is not used to such situations. I was completely tied up by woolly questions from non-lawyers, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), then simply asked me, "Mr. Dalyell, did you really mean that?" I was then reduced to a state of sheepishness.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the Government have accepted the force of what he has just said in the context of the BSE inquiry? He will know that all those who have had to appear before that inquiry have had the advantage of legal advice beforehand, and of representation, if they chose to have it, at the inquiry itself.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a QC, and I do not in any way hesitate on the point that he made.
My contribution will be very short, because I only want to ask one question. Will the Leader of the House address the question about legal representation that was properly put by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)? Some of us think that prime time or any other time in the House ought not to be taken up with a situation that has, frankly, bordered on the preposterous. This is a matter for the courts, and it should be dealt with by the courts rather than by the House, however well intentioned and conscientious, trying to act as a court of law. In the light of personal experience, I am against any Committee of the House setting itself up as a court of law.

Sir George Young: I echo what others have said and wish the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a speedy and complete recovery from his illness. The House owes a debt to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the way in which he presented the report, as well as to his Select Committee.
I am sorry that the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is in poor health. I understand the additional pressure that that has put on her. I hope that nothing that I say about the report will undermine the sympathy that I feel for her on that score.
By comparison with some of the other cases that the Select Committee has recently had to investigate, the original offence—the original offence—of non-declaration was a minor one. Of course my hon. Friend should have declared her interest in private rented property before she introduced two ten-minute Bills. As a Housing Minister in


the early 1990s, I was well aware of my hon. Friend's views on the private rented sector, which accorded with her generally libertarian and free-market views on other matters. I did not for a moment believe that her espousal of a free market in housing, and a belief that rent control was wrong, were driven by her own private interests.
If that had been my hon. Friend's only offence, I am not sure that we would even be having this debate. The Select Committee has adjudicated on a number of occasions where interests should have been declared and were not. Hon. Members have survived the usual, rather minor, press interest that ensued, with their reputations intact. Indeed, some on both sides have gone on to hold very high office.
What clearly exasperated the Select Committee in this case was the smokescreen that descended, which caused it to veer all over the road, and to stop and ask a few people for directions before it eventually found a way through. The Committee's strong conclusion in paragraph 42, and the sentence at the higher end of the tariff scale in paragraph 51, flowed from the general obfuscation, and in particular from my hon. Friend's denials of links with offshore companies.
In the present case, three things have happened which have led us to where we are today. First, as I said, my hon. Friend was initially unable to respond accurately to the questions put to her by the Committee, and found herself tangled in the subsequent web.
Secondly, my hon. Friend has not found it possible to accept the verdict of her colleagues, who I think displayed some patience in dealing with the case, or to express her regret for what happened. If she had felt able to do that, she would have found the House to be generous and forgiving.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend has cast aspersions on the neutrality of the Committee and therefore on the roles of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve on it and on the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would assent to what they believed to be a miscarriage of justice just because they were in a minority. I give away no secrets when I say that both of them are outwith the conventional range of discipline of my party: I cannot imagine that they would have subjected themselves to the discipline of another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay suggested that the procedure that found her guilty was tainted. A number of those who have spoken have mentioned the relevant report of Lord Neill's committee, "Reinforcing Standards". Of course, we should debate that report, which has been published since we last had a report from the Select Committee. It made recommendations about serious contested allegations. Whether that would cover my hon. Friend is a matter for debate. As I said, I personally do not regard her original offence as particularly serious.
Neill stated in paragraph 3.51:
We considered whether an accused MP should have the right to elect the full tribunal procedure in all contested cases, whether a minor or a serious case. We concluded that they should not.

I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said. Once a case has escalated to the extent to which my hon. Friend's case has now escalated, there is a strong argument for the sort of assistance that was mentioned.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Members of Parliament who are not lawyers, however well intentioned, conscientious and untainted they are—I am sure that all members of the Select Committee were like that—are the people to handle contested allegations? When he mentioned offshore companies, the hon. Lady's body language suggested that she strongly contested what was said. I do not know whether she is right or wrong, but it is a matter for a lawyer, rather than for Members of the House of Commons.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for a debate on the report "Reinforcing Standards", and for a debate on the parallel report by Lord Nicholls, which reached the same conclusion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: No, I am going to finish.
I speak in a personal capacity. I have to say that I think the proceedings were fair. I think the Committee was painstaking in its deliberations, and I support the verdict and the sentence.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall speak briefly, really to reinforce the anxieties expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
I think that the process itself is flawed. There are three stages in the process that we adopt. First, there is the complaint to and investigation by the commission; secondly, there is the hearing by the Select Committee, and the report; and, thirdly, there is the process that we are conducting here today. I make no particular complaint about the first and last stages. I recognise that, when it comes to suspension, it must indeed be a matter for the House as a whole, to be debated on the Floor of the House on the basis of recommendations. The fact that most Members will not have read the report is a misfortune, but many decisions are made without all Members' being wholly informed.
I do, however, feel great concern about the second stage—the investigation by a Select Committee of the facts and the recommendations. I strongly support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). When I make the criticism that I am about to make, I hope the House will understand that I am not making a personal criticism of this Select Committee on this occasion; I am dealing with the generality rather than with this particular case.
As the House knows full well, it is one of the principles of the law of this country that no man or woman who knows an accused person can sit in judgment on that accused person. Indeed, any person who appears before a tribunal is entitled to ascertain whether or not the tribunal has an interest in the matter that is before it. Consequently, judges and magistrates from time to time


disqualify themselves from sitting in particular cases because they know the accused person. That is true of every disciplinary committee of which I am aware, and also of every profession of which I am aware.
The reason for that is very sound. If the tribunal sitting in judgment on a person knows that person, there is a risk that the ultimate decision will be affected, either for or against, by that knowledge—or at least it might be supposed to be affected by that knowledge.
I do not for a moment make any criticism of the Select Committee. but the truth is that every member of the Select Committee knows my hon. Friend. Perhaps they know her better than they know many other hon. Members, because she is indeed a very notable figure. In cases such as this, there is a danger that the Select Committee inquiring into particular facts and making recommendations either may be affected by its knowledge, or may be thought to be so affected.
Let me make another point. Again, I am not being critical of the Select Committee, because I have no cause to be. Let us face the facts: the House is an intensely political and partisan place, and when a notable Member appears before a Committee on a disciplinary charge—for that is, in effect, what happened—there is a risk that political baggage will get in the way of a fair hearing and fair recommendations. I am not saying that that happened, because I have no cause to say that it happened; but I do say that the process is flawed, because in other cases it may happen.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that although there is a majority of Labour Members on the Committee, only Labour Members have been suspended as a result of its earlier deliberations? That does not imply that the Committee is tempted to move on party lines, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be suggesting.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped my point. There is no other judicial process in this country whereby individuals are entitled to try another whom they know, or entitled to try a case in which they may be perceived to have a political interest. Through the Select Committee's composition, its members know the accused person, and they may also be thought to have a political interest. I do not say that in this case they did, but we cannot eliminate the danger that they may have had such an interest.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I accept the thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, but does he not accept that other circumstances exist in which people in the same group try each other, for example, the local CIU, Labour club or golf club committee? The great saving advantage in those circumstances is the right to independent representation. That may be the answer to the problem in the case that we are considering.

Mr. Hogg: I shall speak about legal representation in a moment. We are considering the point that a person's public reputation is on the line. My hon. Friend will be deeply humiliated by what has happened. The facts have

been broadcast on radio, television and in many newspapers. It is wholly different from the proceedings that take place in, for example, a golf club.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is not the essence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that we are not considering whether those who try an individual are likely to be guilty of bias, but the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done? Any suspicion—even though it is nothing more—means that the forum is not appropriate to deal with the matter.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have tried to make it plain that I do not allege that the Select Committee was biased or that it acted improperly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North"East Bedfordshire made it clear that that was not the case in the inquiry. However, I am trying to deal with the process, which is deeply flawed.
When a serious complaint has been made against an hon. Member and has been the subject of a report by the Committee, and when it seems likely that such an hon. Member should be suspended or suffer other serious penalties, it would be proper for the House, through the Select Committees, not to adjudicate the facts and not to hear the case.
An external panel, probably comprising three members, which sits under a judicial chairman, should consider the facts and make the recommendation. The recommendation should be made to the House, because I accept that suspension is a matter for the House. However, hon. Members should not make the critical inquiry into fact and consider whether an hon. Member's word can be trusted, or undertake the investigation and the preliminary recommendations. Hon. Members know the accused person.
That leads to my final point. We should adopt the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North"East Bedfordshire. In a case of gravity, an hon. Member needs a lawyer to provide advice and represent the person at the hearing. An hon. Member who is the subject of a serious inquiry is not best placed to weigh up the wisdom of a specific course of action, to conduct cross-examination or even to give evidence by themselves. They need legal advice.
That point is reinforced by the fact that in this case it appears that the original offence was fairly trivial. The sentence is severe because of the way in which my hon. Friend conducted herself—ill-advisedly, if she will forgive my saying so—but the truth is that if she had had legal advice before and during the process she would have conducted herself very much more wisely, and the penalty that she would have faced, if any, would have been much less than that which she now faces. That of itself seems to me to be an argument for legal representation.

Mr. Dalyell: May I reinforce that? After my 1967 privileges case, I was told repeatedly that I made a pig's ear of it. So I did, but with any kind of legal guidance, that would not have been so, because the case was quite good.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most distinguished Members of the House. If he, in the absence of legal representation and advice, made a pig's ear of it, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing two very different questions: that


of standards, which in this case was minor, and that of privilege, which as far as the Committee was concerned was major. Is he arguing that lawyers should be involved in issues of privilege and represent Members of the House on them? If he is, and as against the issue of standards, he will find little support among those on his own Benches. He is confused.

Mr. Hogg: I am not confused; I am talking about liberties and rights. The outcome of the process is that my hon. Friend will be suspended for a month and her reputation will be gravely damaged. Whether we call that liberties, rights or privileges matters not. She will suffer very severe penalties at the hand of the House, which has to put in place a process that treats Members fairly. I do not believe that we are doing so in the case of hon. Members facing the Select Committee.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is one of the most respected and fairest-minded Members of the House. Then he added—I think jocularly—the words, "one of the few"—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Swansea, West makes a deprecating hand motion. Fair enough, but the point is this: are we certain that the process that we have put in place ensures that Members are tried exclusively by Members who are fair minded and responsible? I am not saying that there was any departure from that principle in this case, but I am saying that the process is suspect. We should reform it.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I make a particular point at the outset? I commend the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the way in which he introduced the report. I also make it clear that I have not the slightest doubt that the Committee spent, as it would see it, an enormous amount of time trying to be fair. It has already been said that, given the number of mavericks from both sides of the House who are members of it, none of those people were in any sense subject to pressure. Knowing the personalities to the extent that I do, none would have thought that they had the opportunity to do something horrid to a colleague.
The right hon. Gentleman was fair enough to say that we must surely take from the process an understanding that we can improve our procedures. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) picked up that point as well. I hope that Members read the report and I urge those who have not to do so. It has to be read; it bears reading for both good and unsatisfactory reasons and we must learn from it in the light of experience.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous comments.
For 15 months, the ex-Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and I sat on a Joint Committee of this House and the other House under the chairmanship of Lord Nicholls, producing recommendations to change and update the position. The hon. Member" for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) was on the Committee,

too—my apologies: he was an active member of it. We spent 15 months going into great detail. I doubt whether many Members know that its report exists. I would wager that, even if they know that it exists, not one of them has read it.

Mr. Nicholls: What the right hon. Gentleman says is entirely right.
I have read the report extremely carefully on, I think, four occasions. I have studied it over two weekends. I have given at least as much attention to it as I used to give to briefs of clients who were paying me to do so, so I can probably say that I have read the document more carefully than many that I have been called to vote on from time to time.
I did that for the following reason. I realised only relatively recently the trouble that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was in. I read about it in the paper as casually, I suppose, as many other people. I thought, "Oh dear, that person's reputation is on the line."
I found that interesting. I do not say that I know my hon. Friend particularly well. We do not live near each other. We share some political views, but there are many that we do not. She is to me an honourable friend in theory; I hardly know her at all, but the one thing that I have come to believe over the years from seeing her operate is that she is straight and fair. She may be zany, but she strikes me as someone who would not have a corrupt bone in her body. Therefore, I was interested in the fact that her reputation was on the line. Let us be in no doubt: her reputation is on the line, although, ironically, probably not in the House.
Members have had the benefit of reading the report—if they have cared to do so—and hearing the speeches of people such as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, but the following will be said at the Frog and Bucket later today: "Have you seen what they have been up to in Parliament? Someone has done something dodgy"—the person must be dodgy because that is implicit in overseas trusts. "She did not disclose a load of dodgy trusts. They caught her and kicked her out for a month. Well, they are paid too much anyway."
Whatever we say tonight, that will be the way the matter will be perceived by the general public. If we condemn anyone—any hon. Member or member of the public—to such a judgment, we owe it to ourselves and to the people whom we represent to ask whether we could have done it better.
I make it clear: I imply no criticism of the care that the Committee and, indeed, the commissioner have taken when I say that, as a lawyer, I read things in the report that make me deeply uneasy. I will not detain the House for many minutes, but I will draw its attention to one paragraph as an example: paragraph 32 on page xii. After the first sentence, it says:
We agreed with the Commissioner's conclusions, and said: "Although not a requirement, there are occasions when interests of this nature would be better registered, and if a doubt should arise Members ought to seek the advice of the Commissioner. We and our predecessors have made this point on several previous occasions. If a Member feels it necessary to seek professional advice on a matter of registration it is clear that some doubt must exist".
I ask the House to think about that sentence:
If a Member feels it necessary to seek professional advice on a matter of registration it is clear that some doubt must exist.


We seem to have put ourselves in a position whereby, if a Member is prudent enough to say, "I do not know the full implications. I have many other things to do in my life. I had better take advice," and he does so, it must mean that he should register the interest.

Mr. Tom Levitt: That is not what the report says.

Mr. Nicholls: I have quoted from it. The hon. Gentleman can go away and look it up if he wants to. It is as if someone is brought to a court of law and, at the end of that process, the judge says, "I have now checked the books and there is not an offence that quite fits your case, but you should be convicted. That is the way of it." That is the effect of such a process. We should be concerned about that.

Mr. Levitt: I speak as a member of the Committee. The quotation that the hon. Gentleman uses is from an earlier report, which talks about slightly different affairs in terms of trusts, but, most significant, it seeks to advise Members to get rid of any ambiguity in the situation. Advice should be sought. If that advice is that Members do not need to register an interest, there is no need to register it, so it is not fair to say that seeking advice confirms that there is a registrable interest.

Mr. Nicholls: I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but he is wrong. The first part of my quotation was a phrase from the previous commissioner of which the present commissioner approved. My point stands.
The quotation contains a further implication. It has been said several times that my hon. Friend said that she had no connection with overseas trusts. My reading of the evidence is that she made that point after having thought about it—doubtless with the benefit of lawyers—and in the belief that she had no interest that was registrable. Whether she had such an interest is a matter of debate, but we cannot say that someone who felt she had no interest, but who was subsequently held to have had an interest, must have been acting dishonestly.
My hon. Friend is not the only person who felt that way. We are in a remarkable position. One of the charges upheld against my hon. Friend is detailed on page xv as follows:
Mrs. Gorman gave seriously misleading information in 1995 and 1999 about her connections with the offshore companies Partingdale Holdings, Loxhill Investments and Kinloch Investments, owned by Queenstown Trust, and did not specify them in the Register.
However, my hon. Friend had taken advice on the point from leading counsel. At annex A, on pages lix-lx, the opinion of Philip Heslop QC concludes, at paragraph 9:
It follows that, for the same reasons given in the opinion of Michael Beloff QC but a fortiori, Mrs Gorman had, in my opinion, no interest in the Queenstown Trust registrable under category 9, and Mrs Gorman's position as regards non-registration under category 10 is, for the reasons also set out in Michael Beloff QC's opinion, more than arguable.
My hon. Friend has been found guilty of not registering a particular interest when leading counsel had said that she did not have to do so.
The Standards and Privileges Committee—perhaps like many juries—draws on a wide range of experience. I have gone through the relevant entries in "Dod's Parliamentary

Companion" and "Who's Who" to find out the backgrounds of those who sat in judgment on my hon. Friend. I detected one non-practising banister and a solicitor who had previously had experience of employment law. That was the sum total of legal experience on the Committee. In effect, we have set up a jury that passes judgment without the benefit of counsel arguing before it or a High Court judge who can direct it on matters of fact or law.
I have on a number of occasions spoken not in defence of lawyers. I am a lawyer, but none of us is perfect. As a species, I do not particularly like lawyers. I do not mix with them, and I am not very keen on them. But even lawyers have their uses. We have set up a judicial process in which someone's reputation may be put on the line. We have given the Committee the impossible task of arguing matters of law before itself on which its members are not qualified to argue, yet no trained lawyer is present to ensure that the right inferences are drawn.
These matters used to be handled better. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) said that it was probably inevitable that we reached this point because of some of the excesses that occurred in the previous Parliament. Yet it was probably better in the old days when, if one behaved badly, the judgment of one's peers was such that one's life here became untenable. If one did not realise that one's place was untenable, the Chief Whip would telephone the association chairman, and one would find oneself not standing again for Parliament. That is the way it used to be.
I accept that these matters can never be handled that way again, but we have achieved the worst of all possible worlds. We have condemned someone through a judicial process in which that person did not have the benefit of a lawyer or a chance to have someone sit in judgment.
To give one tiny example of what can happen when people sit in judgment on matters that they are not in a position to judge, I refer to paragraph 47 of the report, which says:
Even if Mrs Gorman believed that the beneficial interest had been transferred, she remained the joint owner of the properties.
The last thing that I would want to do—perhaps because I would be doing it for free—is to give hon. Members who are not lawyers a potted history of land law in this country, but I can inform them that nobody owns land in this country apart from the sovereign: everybody else merely owns an interest in land. It is known as an estate. People own either a legal or an equitable estate.
The point that was being made on my hon. Friend's behalf, as any student of law would know, was that she had severed the beneficial interest. If that had been properly understood, with the help of counsel, by those deliberating on it, a different conclusion would have been drawn. It might not have made a huge difference in the end, but it is an example of statements appearing with all their tendentious force that are not properly understood by those who make them.
It would be inappropriate and needless to make this a party political matter. The public, whom we are here to represent, will be concerned to work out the gravity of my hon. Friend's offence, and to do that they will look at the penalty. That is usually quite a good measure—if one weighs up life imprisonment and a 10 quid fine, one assumes that the greater offence attracted the greater penalty—but that is not how it seems in this instance.
For one of the complaints against the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), we read:
Complaint upheld but no action recommended,
and for another:
Complaint upheld, personal statement made.
The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) felt obliged to resign from the Cabinet, but the verdict on his misdemeanour was:
Complaint upheld … The Committee considered that no action should be taken.
By contrast, the severest penalty of all is being applied to my hon. Friend.
I am worried more than anything else by the fact that the punishment to be meted out is based not on the gravity of the substantive offence but on the fact that the Committee thought that its corporate dignity had been infringed. The most draconian penalty has been imposed for what everyone—including, in fairness, the Chairman of the Committee—accepts is a relatively minor offence.
In the 19th century, Lord Macaulay referred to the way in which the British public can look
in one of its periodical fits of morality.
We have to learn the lessons and say that if we are to impose this procedure on ourselves it must be a fair procedure. If we do not hold ourselves in sufficiently high regard properly and adequately to protect our own, we may ask ourselves why sometimes the general public do not hold us in such regard either.

Mr. Ernie Ross: As a former member of the Committee who then suffered its penalties, I have experience of both ends of its work. When I was on the Committee, a series of hon. Members came before us. If we have a debate about whether we should change our procedures, I certainly hope to be here to defend the Standards and Privileges Committee, which is the most appropriate method whereby we can discipline ourselves and Members of Parliament can be held to account by their peers.
I do not want to invite the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to enter the debate, but I remind hon. Members of the way in which he demonstrated to a Member of Parliament who came before the Committee that had he taken the option of being truthful in the first instance, the outcome would have been much easier both on him and on the Committee. His attempted refusal to accept the facts made the process far more difficult for him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that had the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) been up-front, honest and more helpful to the Committee, the punishment it proposed might not have been so severe.
Our current system is the best system. I broke the rules of the House, I understood that I had done so and I accepted the authority of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It would have helped the House if the hon. Lady had done the same. Instead, regrettably, we have heard a succession of right hon. and hon. Opposition Members, with one or two exceptions, attack the

Committee. They say that they are not attacking it, but they are. That does not help the Committee or help to uphold the standards that we set for ourselves as Members of Parliament. They are trying to confuse those outside this place, who do not understand how we work. They do not further the debate or help the hon. Lady's case by so doing. It would have been far better had she come to the Chamber and apologised. Then, we could have got on with our business.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The matter is a serious one. I rise to speak in this debate because I wish to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) and others who have suggested that it is the draconian nature of the penalty that most exercises us. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is right to draw the House's attention to the way in which today's debate and the decision of the Standards and Privileges Committee will be represented outside the House.
We stand in grave danger of trading complaints against each other and placing them before the Committee for partisan purposes. The only beneficiaries of such a process will be the media, to which we provide wonderful copy, and those who want to denigrate our Parliament. All Members of Parliament recognise that there is little corruption here and that the vast majority of Members—probably all—work extremely hard in the interests of their constituents. We would be hard pressed to name one Member of Parliament on either side of the House who we believe represents an interest that is outside his or her political philosophy for the sake of personal gain. By repeatedly dragging out these cases, we supply the media with sticks to bash us with.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reputation of the House was harmed during the previous Parliament? Does he not realise that the Parliamentary Commissioner and the new Committee arose from the scandals of those days? If he is concerned about the reputation of the House—I have no reason to believe that he is not—does he not agree that it is essential to have standards? If we do not set standards or create the means of inquiring into complaints—in the current case, serious complaints—we might as well give up.

Mr. Howarth: I could not possibly dissent from the view that we must uphold standards in Parliament. My point is that I believe that our standards are rather good. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made a partisan point. It was a feature of the general election—as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, admits, it was a part of the Labour party's campaign—that the Conservative party was portrayed as sleaze-ridden. The fact is that, since the election, relatively seriously charges have been preferred against Labour Members.
The hon. Gentleman makes my very point. We are neither advantaging ourselves nor doing justice to the institution which most of us hold in great affection by continually trying to score these points off one another. As I say, the only beneficiaries thereof are the media.
One of my complaints against Sir Gordon Downey was that he felt it necessary that people should be able to come to his door to make all sorts of complaints about right


hon. and hon. Members. There is a lot of mileage for journalists in doing so because it provides useful copy. The letters "MP" are useful in making short headlines. MP does this, or MP is up to that—it makes wonderful copy and further feeds the public perception that we are not honourable people.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a rather unworthy comment at the outset of the proceedings when I sought to intervene on him, and I hope that he will accept that.

Mr. Alan Williams: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall do the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving way—a courtesy that he did not accord me—but in a moment.
Hon. Members should know that the right hon. Gentleman reserves his venom for me to the Chamber. He is the absolute picture of courtesy outside. We have a fine relationship outside and I do not know what drives him to be so venomous towards me in the Chamber. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, I shall do so.

Mr. Williams: I was about to extend the courtesy to the Chamber and say that if what I said upsets the hon. Gentleman so much, of course I withdraw it.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for so doing. I am sure that it helps. But the point that I wanted to ask him was this. He referred to the fact that one of the charges levelled against my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was that she had sought to interfere—that was the word used in the report—with a former tenant of a property. Yet the report refers to Fran Abrams, who I understand is the journalist from The Independent who lodged one of the initial complaints. She apparently wrote to the commissioner, Ms Filkin, on 28 June and 5 July. On page xxv the report states:
The Independent have contacted 6 former tenants—
not one but six—
who were living at this property in 1990 and paying rent to Mr. Gorman.
If the Committee had genuinely wanted to be fair, it should not only have said that the hon. Lady should not have interfered with the witnesses, it should also have referred to journalists. It is all right for journalists to dig around and find dirt on Members, but it is not in order for Members to warn people that journalists are snooping around trying to make a story. That was why I sought to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and for no other reason.
Reference has been made to the rules of the House. There is growing acceptance across the Floor of the House that the matter has grown out of all proportion. Our rules have already been quoted, but I wish to do so again because it is important that the public understand them. The main purpose of the register is
to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches, or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.
Essentially, the accusation made against my hon. Friend is that she moved a 10–minute Bill when she was in receipt of rents from properties which she had not

declared. Whether she or her husband was a beneficial owner of those properties is immaterial. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made clear, my hon. Friend is known to have been a libertarian and a deregulator, so what she was proposing was entirely consistent with her political philosophy. What the House and the public want to know is when a Member is advancing a cause not because it is one in which they strongly believe and which is part of their political philosophy, but for another reason, namely, that there is some personal advantage to them. I honestly do not believe that many hon. Members could claim to be as politically consistent—indeed, as ideologically consistent—as my hon. Friend. Therefore, it is unfair of the Committee to have taken to heart so seriously and self-righteously the fact that my hon. Friend moved her 10–minute Bill—although I accept that if one has an interest to declare, one should do so.
We need to return to the basic question of the purpose of the register.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: In a moment.
In connection with another matter, I had cause to go through some of the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will name no names because that would serve no purpose but I found that many hon. Members who had properly declared an interest in the register—whether they were sponsored by a trade union, working for a company or whatever—regularly participated in associated debates, particularly 10 years ago. Their interest was probably known, but it may not have been.
I could score petty party political points by naming one or two Ministers and saying that on such and such a date in 1988 they participated in a debate but did not declare their interest. I am not interested in doing so, because I do not believe that those right hon. and hon. Members who are now Ministers in this Labour Government participated in those debates 10 or 15 years ago because they were paid to do so. The fact that they were sponsored by a trade union or whatever was incidental.
The idea that my hon. Friend was influenced by her ownership of a property in Portugal to participate in affairs to do with that country in this House is monstrous. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to pretend to people outside that my hon. Friend had such a serious interest in some property in Portugal, or even two properties, that it influenced the way in which she behaved in the House. We would be telling the public that this place is behaving in a way that none of us intended.
Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) still wish to intervene?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, the hon. Gentleman has moved on.

Mr. Howarth: Fine.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman read out the rule of the House and the test that has to be applied. It is not a subjective test as to whether the hon. Member for


Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) felt that she was moved by her role as a landlord to take a particular view of the Rent Acts; it is an objective test to do with pubic perception. In making his case, the hon. Gentleman seems completely to have lost sight of that fact.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, but I do not think that public perception is such a readily identifiable objective test.
I do not believe that, given my hon. Friend's consistently proclaimed position on the matter in question and on deregulation in general, one could possibly suggest that her ownership of properties in south London—whether she did own them or not—was a factor that influenced the way in which she behaved in the House. I used to represent a mining constituency and participated in many mining debates in which coal miner after coal miner spoke passionately on an issue in which they clearly had an interest. Of course, they declared it, but no one sought to belittle them because they spoke with passion about an industry in which they had a close and personal interest.

Mr. Bill Tynan: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I will give way once more and then I must get on and finish.

Mr. Tynan: I am reluctant to speak, but I am saddened by the tenor of the debate. Hon. Members who have decided to participate are doing so for the best reasons—to sustain a Member of the House who is in trouble. I appreciate why they are doing it. However, although I am relatively new Member, I also appreciate the fact that the House created a procedure providing for a Committee to investigate such cases. I ask the House to recognise not only that such a Committee was established in this case, but that it attempted in fairness to ensure that justice was done. I ask hon. Members to accept that the Committee should be treated with the respect that its deserves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have been indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, but he should remember in future that interventions must be brief.

Mr. Howarth: I quite understand why the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) wished to intervene. He is a new hon. Member, and I am sure that we all welcome him as Lord Robertson's successor.
I appreciate that the Committee is an all-party one. I have made the point before that, formerly, the Committee was presided over by the Prime Minister of the day and composed entirely of very senior hon. Members. That is the way it should be. I do not believe that new hon. Members should be members of the Committee. However, I do not wish to deal with what we should do about the future, but simply to consider the specific case and the dangers that might arise if the House were to approve the Committee's report.
As I said, the proposed penalty is draconian. We have to ask ourselves what damage has been done to the House by my hon. Friend. Perhaps the real damage is that she failed to take advantage of the assistance of one of my

right hon. and learned Friends, who—for a very small fee, or perhaps a very large fee—might have been enabled her to deal more expeditiously with the Committee.
The proposed penalty is not only draconian, but wholly out of proportion to any damage. It also sits very uncomfortably with decisions made in cases involving prominent Labour Members. As for perceptions, the danger for Labour Members is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool—who is a very senior man—was able to preside in investigations of the company affairs of another Minister without declaring to his own private secretary that he was in receipt of a very substantial loan from that other Minister—

Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way.
Within a year, the right hon. Gentleman was not only back in the Government, but in the Cabinet. However, my hon. Friend—who had a lapse of memory, did not remember all the details, and perhaps gave the Committee a bit of a hard time as well—will have imposed on her the most draconian penalty that the Committee has dished out since the general election. That is unfair, and that is why the House, should it decide to support the Committee on the proposed penalty, will be making a grave decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was on the Committee, and I know him to be an extremely fair man. I also appreciate that the Committee takes its decisions on an all-party basis. Nevertheless, on the proposed penalty, I think that he and his colleagues are quite wrong.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I had not intended to speak in the debate—I am the newest member of the Standards and Privileges Committee—but I have become extremely concerned about the tone of the debate. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked what damage the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has done to the reputation of the House. I tell him that Conservative Members, in this debate, are doing more damage to the reputation of the House than the hon. Lady has done.
The speeches by Conservative Members—with the honourable exceptions of the shadow Leader of the House and the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—have been made in the manner of Mark Antony, suggesting that the Committee was honourable, but then seeking to undermine not only the Committee's judgment and work, but the process. We should be very cautious on that particular point.
I dissent entirely from the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). This is not a judicial procedure, and a suggestion that it should be treated as such is quite contrary to the purpose of the Committee and the way in which the House judges its business. The suggestion that people do not sit in judgment on their peers is a denial of what life is mostly about. People are always sitting in judgment on their peers. How on earth do people get promotion, demotion or the sack other than by being disciplined by their peers and people with whom they work?
The House has determined that we wish to establish standards of conduct by which we judge ourselves. The last thing that we want to do is put that process in the hands of barrack-room lawyers outside the processes of the House.
The issue in this case was whether the hon. Lady had a registerable interest to declare and had failed to declare it. It is that simple. The Committee concluded that she had and that she then tried to hide the fact.
This is the first report in which I have been involved. I was very impressed by the time and the trouble that was taken to ensure that every fact was considered objectively and in detail and that everybody had their say. Where there were doubts, we went back over the ground to ensure that we did not proceed until we had secured agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: Who are the barrack-room lawyers outside the House whom we are supposed to have suggested?

Mr. Bruce: I do not know. It was the hon. Gentleman who wanted to bring in the lawyers. My suggestion was that the procedure was best kept within the House and not handed over to judicial process. Some of the senior Conservative Members who have spoken were disingenuous if they were seriously suggesting that that would be an appropriate way forward. They have done a disservice to the House, the Committee and our proceedings by suggesting that, because they know that they were trying to throw up a smokescreen. I hope that the House will move to a decision on the basis of this appropriate and detailed Committee report, which has been considered very carefully and has the support of hon. Members on both sides.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), I had not intended to take part in the debate. I just want to say a couple of things and I promise to be brief.
Many Labour Members have a deal of affection and respect for the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I remember the time when she and I—in the company of others—were almost involved in a plane crash in South Australia. In those dreadful minutes before we crash-landed, she behaved with immense courage. I was white-knuckled at the time. However, she has been ill served by her defenders this afternoon.
If the motion is passed, I know that the hon. Lady will behave with the same dignity and rectitude as were shown by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) when he was rightly suspended for what he has admitted this afternoon was a transgression.
I have complete confidence in the integrity of the members of the Committee. I pray to heaven that I shall never appear in front of them, but I know that I would get a fair and just hearing. One Conservative Member kept talking about the audience outside. There are a number of audiences, including the two devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, which are dealing with legislation on ethics and standards. The Scottish Parliament is doing that at the moment. I hope that they all learn from how we conduct ourselves. This sounds very self-regarding,

although I am not a member of the Committee, but much of what we do in dealing with Members of Parliament whom we believe have transgressed and broken the code of conduct is admirable.
If the motion is passed, I know that the hon. Lady will behave with the same dignity as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. Her defenders this afternoon have served her badly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in wishing the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) well? We pay tribute to the woman concerned and to Duncan Goodhew for taking action immediately when the right hon. Gentleman was taken ill a week ago.
My views on the matter before us are reflected in the Committee's report, and I will not rehearse them. However, published with the report are the minutes of evidence that were taken before the previous report on my hon. Friend. I should like to quote from one of the replies that she gave on page 4 of the evidence given on 18 May 1999. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), my hon. Friend said:
But I perceived the Members' interests Register as a document listing income which I was receiving from elsewhere and where I was not receiving income I did not consider that was a matter that needed to be declared. I acknowledge again that that was an error of judgment on my part for which I am extremely apologetic and sorry, and that is what I want to say.
I think that the memory from this debate and from the second report should be those words—my hon. Friend was right then. I think that the learned counsel who was quoted in one of the letters is wrong. I believe that the learned counsel and others who may follow these debates and consider what to do, especially if we get close to adopting the Nicholls recommendations, should consider paragraph 39 of our report on page xiii, which states:
Members have a duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct and "must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office".
The relevant footnote 61 refers to the House of Commons paper 688, Session 1995–96, page 3.
No one in this debate has challenged the commissioner's fact-finding. That is a good thing. The first question is whether my hon. Friend should have registered information to begin with, the second is whether she should have made a declaration.
When a complaint is made, the commissioner has to ask whether there is a prima facie reason to investigate it. When complaints are put formally to an hon. Member, that hon. Member would have a duty to give the commissioner all the information available so that the commissioner can easily find out the facts. On some complaints, the commissioner finds that there is no case to investigate. On others, there is a case to investigate, but responses show that there is no need to take it any further. If there is a difference of view, or an hon. Member's view has changed, the hon. Member should say that it would have been better to register, do so, and say to the Committee, as my hon. Friend did on 18 May, that she had changed her view.
I do not necessarily agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but he challenged neither our procedure


nor our conclusions. I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that such matters should go to a tribunal or a court of law. I should like my voice to be taken into account. We are capable of considering the findings of fact by the commissioner, and I believe that we have got it right. Things would have been very different if this inquiry had received the same co-operation as the previous one.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 260); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Member for Billericay, from the service of the House for one month.

Orders of the Day — Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill fulfils a commitment that I made in a written statement to the House on 5 November 1998 to introduce legislation as soon as the programme permitted. The Bill will give statutory authority to charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority for handling applications for fishing vessel grants. These charges were discontinued in May 1996, and the Bill does not allow for their reintroduction.
The Bill is very short and straightforward, but the background, as with many legal issues, is complex. Indeed, the background to the Bill is rather longer than the Bill itself. I hope that the House will find my introduction to the issues that required the introduction of the Bill helpful.
First, I should make it clear that the Bill is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry. It is, intended solely to deal with the charges levied in the past. In that respect, it is a very narrow measure. There will be further opportunities to discuss those issues.
The Bill's purpose is to ensure that the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1 October 1981 and 3 May 1996 in connection with the administration of certain grant schemes that were made under the Fisheries Act 1981 were proper. It also ensures the validity of the charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board between March 1972 and October 1981. The Herring Industry Board was abolished in 1981 but its liabilities were transferred to SFIA.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to expand on the background to the Bill before I take interventions.
The first charges that the Bill is intended to validate are known as technical charges. Those were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority to cover the costs of various checks and inspections that the authority carried out during the period from 1 October 1981 to 3 May 1996 in relation to applications under five different fishing vessel grant schemes. No other charges were made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority in administering the schemes during this period.
Under a succession of schemes made under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981, grants have been made available to fishermen in the United Kingdom for the construction, improvement or safety of vessels. These have all been administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on behalf of Ministers, as provided by section 16 of the Fisheries Act 1981.
The SFIA has surveyors' offices in Hull, Plymouth and Peterhead, but grant payments have always been made from Edinburgh. The technical charges covered the costs incurred by SFIA marine surveyors in inspecting vessels at the application stage. Those inspections checked on what work was needed, including examination of technical specifications and plans, and inspection on completion of work so that the surveyor could satisfy himself that the work, which had been grant-aided, had been carried out properly. The charge was calculated on a sliding scale but on average was around 4 per cent. of the cost of the work, although a maximum ceiling was set to limit the charge applied to larger applications.
The charge was itself eligible for aid under the grant schemes, which meant that vessel owners bore only 70 per cent. of the charge. The SFIA levied its charges by deducting the total charge from the amount of grant paid to the beneficiary.
On Government charging, the guiding principle is that a public body may not generally make a charge for a service without statutory authority or the agreement of the "customer". Questions about the validity of the technical charges were first raised in 1995, when officials were examining material that the SFIA had produced to implement the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995. Although section 3 of the Fisheries Act 1981 gives the SFIA power to charge for certain services, there were doubts as to whether this power extended to the SFIA levying its "technical charges". When the SFIA administers a fishing grant scheme, it does so, under section 16 of the 1981 Act, on behalf of Ministers. Its powers, therefore, are essentially those of the Ministers for whom it acts. Since Ministers had no automatic power to make charges in relation to the schemes, it seemed doubtful whether the authority had the power to charge.
Against this, it was noted that applicants had signed the SFIA' s conditions of approval for the payment of grant, and those referred to the deduction of the technical charge from the overall level of grant. I emphasise that no objections about the deduction of the technical charge were ever received from grant recipients.
The issues were extremely complex and were given thorough consideration. The conclusion reached was that it was doubtful whether the SFIA had legal power to levy its technical charges. In the light of that, the authority was formally instructed to cease levying the charges on 3 May 1996.
It was then decided that the charge should not be reintroduced, because the nature of the grant schemes had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill, therefore, does not give authority for technical charges to be levied for any period after 3 May 1996; it does not introduce retrospective charges.
My written answer on 5 November 1998, in Hansard, column 660W, announced the Government's commitment to legislate when our programme allowed. That announcement made it clear that MAFF did not intend to meet any claims that were brought before the legislation was in place. There were three reasons for that. First, the charge for administering the grants was reasonable. Secondly, it has never been challenged—no complaints about it have been received. Thirdly, the cost of repaying the charge would be disproportionate to the benefit that such repayment would confer on those who paid it.
There are precedents for the provision of retrospective statutory authority for similar charges. The Birds (Registration Charges) Act 1997 validated charges levied under sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the registration and selling of certain dead birds. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1954 also gave authority to past payments made to the Postmaster General for wireless transmission and receiving licences.
Background work on the Bill raised the possibility that similar charges levied by the predecessor body to the SFIA—the Herring Industry Board—in connection with the schemes of financial assistance made under the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 and earlier legislation consolidated in that Act might also have been of doubtful validity. After careful consideration, it was concluded that the HIB also had no power to levy those charges. Consistent with the treatment of the SFIA charges, it was thus decided to extend the coverage of the Bill to the equivalent HIB charges.
Section 6 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953, as amended, enabled the HIB to make grants to persons engaged, or proposing to become engaged, in the herring industry for acquiring or improving fishing vessels under a certain size limit. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might understand why I thought I should explain the background before I took interventions.
Acting under section 6 of the 1953 Act, as amended, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) Grants) scheme in 1967, enabling the HIB to make grants. A similar scheme to enable the HIB to make grants was introduced in 1976.
Charges levied by the HIB in relation to those two schemes were on the same sort of fishing vessel grant applications as those made to the SFIA and were calculated using a very similar formula to that later used by the SFIA. The same considerations as to the reasonableness of the charges and the disproportionate cost of any repayments applied to those charges just as they applied to the SFIA charges. Indeed, the difficulties of making any repayments would be even greater, given the longer time that has elapsed. The Government have therefore decided to legislate to validate those charges too, because the charges are equivalent to those levied by the SFIA. The Government would also not intend to meet any claims made before the legislation in respect of them is in place.

Mr. John Bercow: In order to ensure that the debate is not intelligible only to those who have participated on previous occasions, will the hon. Gentleman do me the good turn of assisting the House by explaining the formula—in some detail, if necessary—for the elucidation of right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Morley: As I said in my introduction, I realise that this is a complex, technical and narrow measure that relates to charges. I am presenting a full explanation to the House. With the leave of the House, I am willing to clarify any points that hon. Members raise in the course of the debate.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: From the hon. Gentleman's description, it sounds as though the charging


has come about through custom and practice, rather being made than on a statutory basis. He has traced it back to the HIB. Was it custom and practice then, or did the charging scheme exist before the HIB?

Mr. Morley: No, the charge goes back to the HIB—that is far enough for anyone. It was not based on custom and practice; it came about in relation to the administration of grants. When grants were paid out, the boats were inspected to ensure that the money was being correctly used—that the work had been done properly and that the grant conditions had been upheld. That is right in order to protect public funds, and is normal when any local authority or Government grant is made.
The question was whether the HIB and its successor—the SFIA—actually had the authority to charge for those grants. The Bill makes it clear that they did have that authority, even though it will be applied retrospectively under the measure.

Mr. Forth: The Minister will be aware of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951. Section 15(2)(a) states that the then authority
shall have power … to raise by means of a general levy
the moneys necessary. It then refers to voluntary payments.
If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to trace the history of the Act from 1951 to the present, because there is a continuum. Does the Minister agree that authority may arise from the 1951 Act—not to mention its successors?

Mr. Morley: In an earlier debate today, we heard of the benefit of engaging the best legal brains to give advice on such issues. I am advised that the matter has been examined carefully to find which provisions are applicable. The feeling was that, in order to ensure that there is no doubt about the situation, a measure could be introduced, because it would make it clear where matters stand—both to the industry and to the Government—and that charges were levied with the proper authority.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Minister referred to the legislation on the HIB. Will he tell the House how the White Fish Authority and legislation linked with the HIB are germane to the Bill?

Mr. Morley: It is germane because the HIB was the predecessor to the SFIA. The HIB administered charges that were, in essence, the same as those administered under the SFIA and for the same kind of grant administration. There was thus an element of doubt. If there is doubt as to the legal status of the SFIA in relation to charging, the same doubt must apply to its predecessor.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: I should like to make progress with my remarks. I realise that this is not one of the most scintillating speeches ever made in the House, but it is important that I explain what is at stake, and the technicalities of the measure.
The total amount of money levied in charges was £7.3 million; it covers 13,000 cases over about 30 years. On average, that amounted to about £560 per case. However, as up to 30 per cent. of the charge was offset by grant, the cost to the applicant was about £390. A small part of many of the charges was for technical advice—such as assisting applicants to choose the appropriate equipment—and was not directly connected with handling the grant application. The SFIA did, and does, have powers under the Fisheries Act 1981 to charge for such of advice, but it would now be extremely difficult to separate that from charges for the work that necessitated the Bill.
Because of the time delay, it is difficult to be more precise about the exact amount of the charge than the figure of £7.3 million. I am sure that the House realises that, even if we wanted to trace the owners of boats on which charges were levied, it would be impossible to do so.
The Bill's first main operative provision is in clause 1(1). It will ensure the validity of the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between October 1981 and May 1996 in connection with its administering four fishing vessel grant schemes made under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981 and also the 1976 scheme to which I have already referred. Under the 1981 Act, the responsibility for administering the latter scheme passed to the SFIA. The schemes are the five specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 1(2).
Clause 2(1) makes provision to ensure the validity of the same technical charges levied by the HIB between March 1972 and October 1981 in connection with its administering the two fishing vessel grant schemes specified in subsections 2(a) and (b).
Clause 3 cites the full name of the Bill. No charges were levied for the administration work after 3 May 1996 and clause 3(2) is necessary to make it clear that the Bill does not facilitate the reintroduction of any charges after that date. Clause 3(3) is necessary to establish that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom including Northern Ireland.
I appreciate that this is a narrow and technical measure. However, it will protect from any doubt the issue of the payment of public funds. I emphasise that there have not been any complaints from the fishing industry about the charges, which were levied fairly in relation to the services that were provided as part of the administration of grant aid that was claimed at the time.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: In the light of the fishing industry's parlous state, it is incredible that, at his first opportunity to speak to the House since the Fisheries Council met in December, the Minister should have chosen to introduce a Bill that is at best obtuse, as he readily agreed: he also said virtually nothing about the industry's problems, and certainly proffered no short or long-term solutions to them.
Although I accept that the Bill is narrowly drawn—and I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will exert his responsibilities in that regard—I have to say that we have very few opportunities to discuss fishing in all its facets on the Floor of the House. The bulk of the legislation is a devolved European matter. At the time of the annual fishing debate in November last year, there was


considerable disquiet about the short time afforded for discussion. After the Minister made his contribution, only two Back Benchers were able to speak.
The problem was recognised by the Leader of the House at business questions on 19 January. The right hon. Lady was asked about the loss of this Bill on that day's business and she said:
I was not pressed to find more time for the Bill that was debated this evening, I was pressed to find an opportunity to discuss fishing issues. My hon. Friend will know that one of the Bills that has been lost for today's business, as a result of the activities of Opposition Members, would have offered an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 941.]
That was her view of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill refer to the Fisheries Act 1981, which is the key to the whole thing. Section 15 mentions schemes of financial assistance
for the purpose of reorganising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry.
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole point behind the series of Acts—to say nothing of the statutory instruments—that lie behind the Bill was, among other things, to promote the sea fish industry? That should have given the Minister the opportunity to tell us how the Bill contributes to that broad purpose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill does not provide the platform for the wider-ranging debate for which he had hoped. I cannot allow hon. Members to go down that path.

Mr. Moss: Such is the critical nature of the issues facing the fishing industry that I think that almost every Member representing a fishing constituency will have been lobbied hard about its difficulties. The industry is almost in despair at the increasing level of regulation and cuts. Such are its fears for the future that it has launched a most unprecedented attack on the Minister by demanding his resignation. It has set a six-point plan in front of him, and criticises him on two counts relating to the detail in the Bill.
The criticisms relate to the Government's lack provision of any grants for fleet modernisation, the very points that were made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I have to repeat my advice. Members cannot have a general debate about the state of the fishing industry, however much they crave one. It is a narrow and technical Bill.

Mr. Moss: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am an honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the brother of the skipper of a big freezer trawler. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that no representations have been made to me about the Bill. That is because its focus is narrow.

Mr. Moss: The point that needs emphasising is that the Bill offers the Minister the opportunity to say something about grants and safety grants, which he has pointedly refused to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is specifically not the case. I ask the hon. Gentleman to desist from pursuing that point.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not Question Time. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has not said anything on which the hon. Gentleman can intervene.

Mr. Moss: Let me move to a separate part of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should abide by my previous ruling. Nothing of substance has yet been said on which he can intervene.

Mr. Moss: As the Minister pointed out, the Bill's purpose is to ensure the validity of certain charges levied by the SFIA and by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority, which had their powers transferred to the SFIA in 1981. I asked the Minister to clarify the position of the White Fish Authority and he pointedly failed to do so. However, along with the HIB, it was a precursor of the SFIA.
At the heart of the matter is the Fisheries Act 1981, which set up the SFIA and, in particular, its role in administering various schemes of financial assistance under part II of that Act. When one delves into that Act, it is not apparent that any glaring oversight was made when it was enacted. The intentions of the original lawmakers were clear and unambiguous.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend says that the Bill may be necessary to ensure that there is no doubt about the validity of the charges, but has there been any legal challenge to them? The Minister shakes his head, so I assume that there has not. That raises a serious question as to why the Bill is necessary. Fishermen, as they see their industry going down the tube, might wonder why the House is debating such a narrow Bill and why the Minister is like Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. The House is wasting its time when it should be discussing the real problems of the industry.

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, to which I was going to come later.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Moss: No, I shall not give way just at the moment.
Section 3(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981 states that the SFIA
may charge fees for any services which it provides and may accept voluntary contributions to its expenses or to its expenses in respect of any particular matter.


The charges that the Bill seeks to validate, which are known as technical charges in the accounts of the SFIA, are those that are levied by the SFIA to cover the costs of various checks and inspections carried out by marine surveyors as part of the administration of the various grant schemes in the statutory instruments referred to in the Bill. Those grant schemes are essentially of two types: one relates to the purchase and/or improvement of fishing vessels, and the other specifically to safety improvements to fishing vessels.
In sections 15 and 16 in part II of the 1981 Act, Ministers were given powers to provide schemes of financial assistance and to delegate the administration of such schemes to the SFIA. For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion regarding those powers, section 15(1) says:
The Ministers may, in accordance with a scheme made by them with the approval of the Treasury, make grants or loans for the purpose of re-organising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry or of contributing to the expenses of those engaged in it.
It is clear that Ministers can set up schemes to give financial assistance of the type described in the Bill.
To embrace earlier schemes that were already in the pipeline, subsection (5) includes those schemes administered by the White Fish Authority under section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. The interesting point is that the White Fish Authority seems to have had powers both to issue grants and to make charges for administering the schemes, including technical charges—or so it was believed when the White Fish Authority became the SFIA.
Section 16 of the 1981 Act covers the delegation of powers to the SFIA. It states that
Ministers may require the Sea Fish Industry Authority to administer for them any scheme made by them under this Part of this Act and where the Authority has been so required it shall administer the scheme accordingly and may exercise any discretion vested under the scheme in the Ministers.
The purpose of that section is clear: if a Minister requires the SFIA to administer any scheme of financial assistance for the fishing industry, it is duty bound to do that for the Minister.
If I interpret the Act correctly, the SFIA is also empowered to exercise any discretion that Ministers had vested in themselves, either in the primary legislation or in the various statutory instruments relating to the individual schemes. As I said earlier, those statutory instruments are in two groups. The first includes the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Schemes 1976, 1981 and 1987, and the second includes the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Schemes 1993 and 1995.
Let us examine those statutory instruments more closely: apart from the most obvious changes relating to rates of grant, each one provided an opportunity to tighten up the wording and widen the scope of the legislation. That was confirmed by the Minister in his speech. As the House is aware, neither of the schemes for grant aid is now available—the last to go was the safety improvement grant scheme, which the Minister chopped last May—and the SFIA was instructed not to make any further technical charges after 1995. However, there were and still are schemes being administered from that date and from May 1996, which was the date for the discontinuance of the safety grant scheme.
What were the technical charges composed of? We can obtain some idea of that from the relevant paragraphs of the statutory instruments. Let us consider, for example, the safety improvements grants scheme of 1995. At the beginning there is a simple statement that Ministers—meaning Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland—can exercise powers conferred on them by subsections 15(1) and 15(2) of the 1981 Act and administer the scheme on the safety improvement grants. Applications for grant are made to Ministers under paragraph 3 of the statutory instrument and decided by them under paragraph 6.
Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 set down eligibility terms for grant payment, pre-work approval and minimum standards. Paragraphs 8 and 9 give the House an indication of the amount of work involved. On pre-work approval, paragraph 8(1) says:
Where an applicant whose application has been approved under paragraph 6 intends to enter into a contract with another person for the carrying out of the whole or any part of a relevant improvement to which the approved application relates, the Ministers shall, before the contract is made, approve—

(a) the specification for the improvement to be undertaken;
(b) the tender for expenditure to be incurred; and
(c) the form of contract to be entered into between the applicant and the supplier or other contractor.

Paragraph 9, on minimum standards, says:
A relevant vessel to which an application approved under paragraph 6 relates shall conform to any standards laid down by or under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1993 and shall be constructed or adapted so as to make such provision for the accommodation of officers and crew as, in the opinion of the Ministers, conforms to the best modern practice, after making due allowance for the age and kind of the vessel, for sleeping and messing accommodation, sanitary accommodation, medical or first-aid facilities, store rooms, catering facilities and other accommodation.
That is only part of the range of checks and inspections required to be carried out on each and every grant application, not only in 1995 but long before that, and probably as far back as the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953. That is work for experts such as marine engineers and surveyors, who would be drawn in the main from the private sector—certainly post-1981. Those people needed paying for the work done, and the question was, and apparently still is, who should pay them and through which Department or organisation.
Ministers made the schemes, invited applications, vetted and approved those applications and reduced or recovered grant in certain situations. That much is clear. Section 16 of the 1981 Act gave Ministers the power to require the SFIA to do all that necessary work for them. Furthermore, section 16 gives the SFIA the power to exercise any discretion vested in Ministers under the scheme. If Ministers could cover their costs of administering the scheme, why could not the SFIA, to which they had devolved responsibility, do so? Surely section 3(2) of the Act confirms the SFIA' s authority to make charges, when it states clearly:
The Authority may charge fees for any services which it provides.
Charges were made on the applicants who had to match the criteria and conditions for the grant aid which were set by Ministers. Ministers could hardly countenance grant being given without corroboration from the SFIA that all the conditions had been satisfied. That meant checks and inspections, and payment for expert services.
No one is suggesting or has suggested that the recipient of the grant aid should not be the person eligible for the costs of processing and administering the grant application. Since 1995, when the SFIA was told to stop levying charges, the organisation has had to find the money to pay for those services out of its own budget. I remind the House that the SFIA's income comes from the levy on all
persons engaged in the sea fish industry,
according to section 4(1) of the 1981 Act. It seems that the many are supporting the grant applications of the few who stand to benefit.
I return to my earlier statement that, on close scrutiny, there does not appear to be any glaring oversight by those who originally drafted the legislation with regard to the responsibilities of Ministers, the SFIA or its predecessors. Certainly, the SFIA interpreted the law as I have attempted to describe it to the House. It clearly believed that it was given full authority to administer the various grant schemes and to make charges for its services.
It should be emphasised that the conduct of the SFIA was impeccable and beyond reproach. I hoped that the Minister would make that point in his opening speech. Perhaps he will emphasise the fact when he winds up. The SFIA inherited the system from its predecessors, the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority, and continued to make technical charges in good faith.
Even the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill, which were no doubt written by the lawyers who drafted the Bill, are less than convincing on the question of who had the real authority. On page 3, paragraph 11, the notes conclude, as justification for the primary legislation:
It is considered doubtful that the Authority—
that refers to the SFIA—
had statutory authority to make these charges.
What a monumental understatement—"It is considered doubtful". One is left wondering whether it is considered doubtful that the Bill deals conclusively with the problems that it purports to solve.

Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My eye also alighted on that statement in paragraph 11 of the notes. As that doubt is the entire justification for the Bill, would it not have been helpful if the legal advice on which that doubt is based was vouchsafed to the rest of the House, so that we could form our own opinion?

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which should be addressed to the Minister rather than to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that important issue when he winds up.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I reinforce the comment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that the legal advice should be published, for it is not inconceivable that someone who disagrees with the Government's conclusion might seek to protect himself under the European convention on human rights? It is important that the House should know to what it is giving its approval.

Mr. Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt the Minister will have access to the published guidance, which I am sure is at hand, and he could refer to that when he winds up the debate.
One cannot help but feel that the Bill is not the stuff of primary legislation on the Floor of the House, especially as it is taking up valuable parliamentary time, which I and many others believe could be put to more meaningful use.
The total charges levied by the Herring Industry Board and the SFIA since 1972—that is, over 24 years to 1996, when the last technical charges were made—were £7.3 million, covering 13,000 cases. To put that into perspective, the SFIA was approving safety grants alone at the rate of more than £1 million a year up to 1996.
The fishing industry will be dismayed to learn that, of all legislation seeking to help its parlous situation, the Government have produced this Bill. Yes, it purports to block a perceived loophole, but even the Minister was not convinced of the existence of the loophole. Yes, it deals retrospectively with the problem, and yes, ironically, it touches on the vexed and pertinent issue of grant aid to the fishing industry.
Given the content of the Bill and the promises made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister to reintroduce safety grants for the industry, why did not the Minister do the decent thing this evening and table additional clauses to the Bill to right the wrong and reintroduce safety grants?
The fishing industry will yet again be incredulous about the level of commitment from the Minister and his complete lack of tact and sensitivity in presenting such an inconsequential Bill in a crowded parliamentary timetable. That says much about the Government's priorities and lack of understanding of the real issues.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I begin by responding to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). We have an excellent Minister. There is no way that I can be described as a sycophant—

Mr. Forth: Grovelling.

Dr. Godman: I do not have to grovel—not when I am speaking about the fishing industry, about which I know something, as does the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), even if the Opposition's official fisheries spokesman knows little or nothing about the industry.
The industry has been badly served by both Tory and Labour fisheries Ministers down the years, but my hon. Friend is a good Minister.

Mr. John Townend: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say that I knew little or nothing about the fishing industry?

Dr. Godman: I would not dare say that about the hon. Gentleman. He is one of the few Opposition Members who attends fishing debates. I am sure he will agree that we do not have enough debates about the fishing industry. In no way would I suggest that he knows little or nothing about the industry. I know that he is a committed supporter of fishermen and their families in his constituency. I have offered that compliment to him in the past.
My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the Bill is narrowly focused. I acknowledge that, while agreeing with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that the industry deserves a wide-ranging debate in the near future. As I said earlier, I speak as a member of a fishing family. We have served the industry badly in the House until recently, when my hon. Friend assumed responsibility.
I need to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions, if he will forgive me for making him work. The Herring Industry Board was set up in 1927 or thereabouts, even when the herring industry—I speak as the son of a fisher girl—was in decline. The board had to be wound up many years ago.
According to the Minister, who referred to both the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, the relevant period is from 1981 to 1996. The sum that we are discussing is £7.3 million, relating to 13,000 checks and inspections conducted by officials of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I have considerable respect for the SFIA' s officials, who, I believe, are located in Young street, Edinburgh. Apparently, the original Herring Industry Board plaque is still on the wall.
I feel that I must comment on the absence of certain political day trippers—members of the Scottish National party who are Members of the Scottish Parliament, and who receive £20,000 over and above their normal salaries. Although the Bill is narrowly focused, it is of more than passing interest to all our fishing communities in Scotland. I need hardly remind hon. Members and others that, in terms of the overall economy, the fishing industry in Scotland is much more important than the industry south of the border. Anyway, the day trippers have gone back to Edinburgh.
What documentary evidence is retained by the Ministry, or by the authority in Edinburgh, concerning the 13,000 inspections? What power did the inspectors have in terms of recommending, say, that a fishing vessel should not be allowed to put to sea? What power was given to inspectors assessing safety equipment? Were they able to say that a vessel was so unseaworthy, or that its safety equipment had been so badly neglected, that it should not be allowed out?
The Minister may say, "Hold on: the arrangements ended in 1996." But who has the power now? I tabled three questions for answer on Monday 13 March, asking how many fishing vessels had been banned from putting out to sea because of inadequate safety gear, or because they were unseaworthy. Questions are now being asked in relation to the dreadful loss of the seven-man crew of the Solway Harvester, a vessel owned by a company in Hull. I believe that the House should be told who now has that power. I believe it is exercised outwith the Ministry, by the Coastguard Agency, but, in the context of safety checks, does the Ministry liaise closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?

Mr. John Hayes: Given his renowned knowledge of these matters, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the findings of the inquiry into sea fishing by the Agriculture Committee, which were published last year. I was fortunate enough to serve on the Committee during part of the inquiry. It

visited Iceland and many other interesting places, but that is neither here nor there: I shall not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Committee made two recommendations—recommendations 37 and 38—in regard to prosecutions for fishing infringements. It recommended that the Government
commission a review of how the prosecution process for fishing offences could be made more efficient, more speedy and more consistent,
and how the penalties for serious breaches of the regulations could be increased. The Committee was referring principally to regulations affecting the taking of fish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr. Godman: Thank you for rescuing me from what seemed to be an interesting speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech later, but he will need to hearken to what is said by the Chair in regard to the narrow focus of the Bill.
I thought that the Agriculture Committee produced a very good report, but, although I am not a lawyer, I think I am right in saying that in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, the penalties for fishing infringements—this certainly applies to those who are dragged before the sheriffs courts in Scotland—are much heavier than those imposed on owners for failing to protect their crews in relation to adequate safety measures. There is a hell of a difference between the two, and I think that that is a scandal. I have said it often enough before, but I will say it again.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is going to have another try.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is going wide of what is a very narrow Second Reading debate.

Dr. Godman: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was carried away. You know what I am like when I start talking about the fishing industry. I need to be more rational and logical.
Let me ask this in relation to the Bill, and in relation to the question of safety checks. Between 1981 and 1996, were the inspectors able to recommend to the SFIA the legitimacy of an application to buy survival suits for the crews of fishing vessels? Life rafts were purchased during that period, along with other essential safety equipment. Some of the provision for that was introduced by Albert McQuarrie, a famous Tory Member and an old friend of mine, in a private Member's Bill concerned with the safety of fishing vessels, which later became an Act. But were the inspectors allowed—in the context of the inspection referred to specifically in the Bill—to sanction the purchase of survival suits?
I remind the Minister, if he needs to be reminded, that in two recent cases men who have gone over the side have survived only because they were wearing survival suits. One lad who fell from an Orkney-based vessel was in the water for 20 minutes. Another fell from a vessel that was


burning, and was in the water for the same length of time. He suffered mild hypothermia, but because he was wearing one of the suits he survived. I want to know whether the inspectors were allowed to sanction their acquisition during the earlier period, and I want to know the position now in terms of safety grants.
Let me ask another question in the context of the Bill. I know that the Minister has established a concordat and a very good working relationship with his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament—although things are a bit different with the Northern Ireland Assembly at the moment—but what discussions took place about the Bill with those responsible for the Scottish fishing industry and the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Hayes: May I intervene, more briefly than last time and on that specific point? In their response to the Agriculture Committee, the Government said:
the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate and the Ministry's Legal Department recognise the importance of dealing with suspected infringements promptly and issuing summonses through the Courts in good time.
Interestingly, they also noted that
Separate legal systems operate in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
They made that point quite firmly, suggesting that the problems referred to by the hon. Gentleman did exist.

Dr. Godman: That was a remarkably brief intervention for the hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous. He makes an important point, but I do not want to drift off course, if you will pardon the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Being the navigator that you are, you would sort me out.
We are considering 1981 to 1996, but our anxieties did not end in 1996. I appreciate that primary responsibility for safety rests with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My hon. Friend also has a commitment to the safety of fishermen and the well-being of their families and communities. We need a debate during which we can not only discuss the need to make our industry more economically viable for all the fishing communities from the Shetland islands to Cornwall, but consider introducing regulations, which give greater protection to fishermen as they follow the most hazardous occupation in our islands.

Mr. Andrew George: Like other hon. Members, I regret that we have no adequate opportunity to debate fishing matters. However, this debate does not present such an opportunity, because we are considering a narrowly focused Bill. We cannot therefore spend many minutes regretting that.
I appreciate the fact that the Bill is intended to be a tidying-up measure. For the reasons that the Minister outlined, it will clarify the powers of the Sea Fish Industry Authority by giving it the ability to levy administration charges for processing applications for grant aid. The Bill will apply retrospectively, and validate practice since the Fisheries Act 1981 was passed. Despite the comments and explanations of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), it is not appropriate to debate whether the Government's legal advisers were doing their job properly.
Hon. Members have drawn attention to paragraph 11 of the explanatory notes. It states:
It is considered doubtful that the Authority had statutory authority to make these charges.
We have to take that on trust. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the matter in his winding-up speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly suggested that we should have access to that legal advice at a later stage. Apart from the bald statement that I quoted, we have no further evidence to go on.

Mr. Bercow: I note the hon. Gentleman's last remark. May I infer from his comments that he, as the representative of a fishing constituency, and in the absence of published Government legal advice, would not feel comfortable supporting the Bill in the Lobby for fear of the possibility that, despite the Minister's assurances, it might not be compatible with convention rights?

Mr. George: I am happy to support Second Reading. We will have an opportunity at a later stage to pore over the matter in more detail and perhaps resolve the matter. I do not believe that we shall store up problems simply by supporting the Government this evening. We intend to do that.
As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly pointed out, I represent a constituency that has a considerable fishing interest. It is appropriate to point out that when I realised that the Bill would be discussed, I attempted to consult the industry as widely as possible, not only in my constituency but nationally and, indeed, internationally in England, Scotland and Cornwall—

Dr. Godman: And Northern Ireland.

Mr. George: Yes, and Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I found that the industry had no burning ambition for the measure to be reviewed seriously, or that the House should be detained with matters of detail.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: When the hon. Gentleman consulted the fishing organisations, did he explain that it was possible that they had paid £7 million that they should not have paid? In the current financial climate, £7 million would be most welcome to the fishing industry.

Mr. George: I am grateful for that intervention. The information about the 13,000 cases and £7.3 million was germane to the consultations and the industry knew about it. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) knows that if we examine the matter retrospectively, we must also consider Governments from 1981 who were responsible for overseeing the loss.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was right to draw attention, within the narrow scope of the Bill, to the need for the Minister to tackle fishing safety grants. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement in May last year in which he announced the withdrawal of those grants. Yet in June, on a visit to Cornwall and the south-west amid much fanfare, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions had found the money to reinstate the grant. However, in a letter in November, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the chief


executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to say that the grants could not simply be restored as he had originally understood.
We have covered that ground before, but the Minister knows that the industry is anxious to restore the grants. On a recent visit to Cornwall, which the Western Morning News reported, the Prime Minister stated we would get some news soon. We anticipate positive news that fishing safety grants will be reinstated soon. We are anxious for confirmation of that.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman shared experiences on fishing trawlers with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us more] I remember that we were linking arms.
Safety grants came within the orbit of the 1981 discussions, with which the hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as I am. The Select Committee on Agriculture, on which we both served specifically referred to safety grants in the context of an ageing fleet. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that in relation to the Select Committee's work and recommendations?

Mr. George: I am grateful for that intervention, which is relevant to the matter that I am considering. The Select Committee made important recommendations on the lines that I am outlining. I ask the Minister to tackle those points in his winding-up speech.
The explanatory notes state that the SFIA was told to stop levying charges on 3 May 1996. However, we can find no public statement on that date, or any reference to the fact in the authority's annual report. We should consider what constitutes appropriate action by a public body. It is surprising that the matter was not considered sufficiently important.
It being Seven o'clock, further proceedings stood postponed.

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]

Tax Cuts and Public Services

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
That this House notes the continued underfunding of the National Health Service compared to the European average, as recently highlighted by the Prime Minister, the continued underfunding of schools, with average class sizes rising for most age groups since the election of the Labour Government, that government investment in public transport is significantly below that provided by the previous Government, that police numbers are falling, and that the 75p increase in the weekly pension is grossly inadequate; and concludes that instead of tax cuts the Chancellor should give greater priority to further improvement in the National Health Service, schools funding, public transport, the police and a greater increase in state pensions.
The House should listen to these words:
Nobody wants to pay more taxes but cutting is another matter. What bothers me is whether the money that goes in tax cuts … would be better spent on areas of direct social need.
They are not mine, but those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in The Daily Telegraph on 5 February. They were bravely and, we believe, rightly spoken and they are the substantive reason for the Liberal Democrats initiating tonight's debate. The Government are failing to meet their election pledges to save the national health service, prioritise education, education, education and ensure that pensioners share in the growing wealth of the nation. Instead, the one thing that we know the Chancellor will deliver in the new financial year is an income tax cut, which is not mentioned anywhere in Labour's manifesto. Not only that, but it seems that rich business men will be the biggest gainers from the Budget.
All the briefings on the Budget, which now appear with monotonous regularity in the press, have one thing in common:
the government … is on the side of the risk taker;
there will be a "Budget for business"; and
the budget will introduce tax breaks for share schemes and new corporate ventures.
All of them say that the Chancellor is planning to cut capital gains tax. His previous changes, which were announced in the taper, saved the partners of Goldman Sachs in the United Kingdom alone £500 million, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) £1.5 million, and Lord Sainsbury £200 million. In other words, they were tax breaks for the rich, but in his 1996 Labour party conference speech the Chancellor said:
While the Tories want a millionaire's tax cut for themselves … a
Labour
Chancellor will not waste money on boardroom excesses.
He attacked the Conservatives for introducing policies similar to his own.
We do not favour tax increases any more than the hon. Member for Walton does if there is no good reason for them, but let us consider Labour's case. Its first point is that it is spending more and taxing less—that is the argument in the Prime Minister's amendment—but that is not true. The question for public services is not the percentage of tax take in the economy, but percentage spending. It was 39.6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1996–97, but for the first three years under Labour, including this year, it fell to 39.3 per cent. The Chancellor has announced that it will be only 39.6 per cent. even at the end of this Parliament so the public sector spending percentage will be exactly that which the Government inherited from the Conservatives. Conservative spending, not surprisingly, delivers Conservative underfunding.
Labour's second argument is that it is at least spending more on the priorities. Let us consider people's priorities, such as health. Waiting lists rose by 36,000 in December and now stand at 1,108,000, which does not fulfil Labour's so-called early pledge. Even worse, the number of out-patients who wait more than three months has risen from 248,000 to 512,000. Labour's NHS policy is not working. Why? Average spending under Labour will, over five years, be higher by only 0.01 per cent. of GDP than in the last five years under the Tories. It fell from 5.3 per cent. of GDP in the last year under the Tories to 5.2 per cent. in Labour's first year and was only 5.3 per cent. in its second year.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrats believe that the average taxpayer pays too little and should pay more?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the motion and the debate. We are arguing that taxpayers should not pay less than now on average and that the Government should forgo tax cuts at this stage because they have not fulfilled their pledges on health, education, pensions and the rest.

Mr. Bill Rammell: rose—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), but then I must make progress.

Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He may agree that there is a suspicion—I put it no higher than that—that the Liberal Democrats constantly commit themselves to more spending than they justify in terms of where the money would come from. When challenged, their usual defence is, "Refer to our Budget submission." Is he aware that when the Library contacted the office of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and Liberal Democrat headquarters, neither was willing or able to provide a copy? Does not that show the degree of Liberal Democrat disingenuousness on this issue, and is not it about time that they justified where the money would come from?

Mr. Taylor: I can help the hon. Gentleman. First, I am now the spokesman on the issue and, secondly, this year's Budget submission has not yet been published.

Mr. Rammell: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I have given way so will the hon. Gentleman let me make progress? He should perhaps be a little more careful in making his points. I want to discuss education.

Mr. Campbell: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a moment, but let me make a little progress.
Class sizes for the five to seven age group have fallen. The Labour pledge on that, although not yet met, is likely to be met soon—not because of extra funding, but because a transfer of resources has meant that class sizes for over-eights have risen every year since Labour came to power. The parents of five and six-year-olds who voted for lower class sizes for their children back in 1997 find that class sizes are higher. Nursery class sizes have also risen and secondary school class sizes are at their highest for 20 years. Why?
Average spending is 4.8 per cent. of GDP, which is lower than the 5 per cent. average in the last five years under the Tories. Even by the end of the comprehensive spending review period, spending, according to the pre-Budget report, will fail to meet the Government's 5 per cent. target, which was only set in 1998. That is the result of the cut in their first two years in office to 4.7 per cent. of GDP, which was lower than in any of the last five years under the Conservatives.

Mrs. Campbell: Is not the reality of the Liberal Democrats in local government different from the scenario that the hon. Gentleman describes? Is he aware that Liberal Democrats on Cambridge city council voted to cut not only the council tax, which was at a standstill, but £170,000 from neighbourhood planning in the ward in which they had recently conned people into voting them in at a by-election? Furthermore, is not it true that Councillor David Howarth, their leader on the council, is an economic policy adviser to Liberal Democrat Front Benchers?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady may see the Liberal Democrats in control of Cambridge city council shortly, when she will learn for herself what the Liberal Democrats do to invest in education when in control. When Cornwall county council was under our control, we increased spending on schools year by year.
There is a similar problem with public transport. There are record numbers of complaints, the number of late trains has increased by 25 per cent., London Underground breakdowns are up by 30 per cent., and spending compared with that under the Tories has been cut. Indeed, on the Government's own inflated figures, they will spend £130 million less of Government funds than they did last year. Their public transport investment is simply going down.
The measly 73p increase for pensioners is outweighed just by the council tax rise, which has been predicted by the Government themselves, irrespective of any other


cost-of-living increases. The Chancellor likes to boast of the free television licence for those aged over 75, which we argued for and welcome, but it is not enough to say to a pensioner that he can watch television but cannot feed or heat himself following the 1.1 per cent. rise in the pension.
What did the Labour manifesto say? It pledged to ensure that, like those in work, pensioners would benefit from growth in the economy, yet the income of those in work has increased by four times that of pensioners—so much for sharing the growth of the economy.
In response to all that, the Chancellor comes up with the mantra "£40 billion for health and education." It is there again in the Labour amendment. I hope that the Labour Members who are here and, perhaps more significantly, the much larger number in marginal seats throughout the country, understand that it is not true. It is funny money. A Labour Member recently asked me why people do not understand that it takes time. Perhaps that is because people thought that the £40 billion was true. Certainly, Labour keeps peddling the figure; it does so again today.
The reason people are not seeing the improvements in health and education that they would have expected with such massive investment is that that massive investment is not taking place. NHS spending of £20 billion is reduced to around £12 billion simply by stripping out inflation. Once we strip out triple- counting—adding three years together—the real increase this year will be only £2.3 billion. That is not negligible but, on average over the current Parliament, it is in line only with the investment that the Conservatives managed under the previous Prime Minister. This is a funny-money Chancellor.
Waiting lists are increasing. Labour Members should not be surprised if people are disappointed by the Government's approach. If they had said that it was a hard process that would take time, that we could afford this now but that we would do more when we could, they might have carried the public with them, but the truth is—Labour Members know it—that they raised expectations beyond anything they could deliver. They had not got out of the habits of hype and exaggeration that they had displayed in opposition.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may know that I share his concern about the fact that the Labour Government have broken their promises on public expenditure, but will he answer the following question on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? Does he repudiate the Treasury clamp, which in turn depends on the Maastricht criteria, which determine the 3 per cent. deficit rule? Would they refuse to accept that? Would they renegotiate it, or would they accept it, in which case they would break promises in the same way as the Labour Government?

Mr. Taylor: I might have known that the hon. Gentleman would work Europe into the debate somehow. I congratulate him on his ability to do so in any circumstance, but we argued for that disciplined approach to economic management in advance of any European rules. We do not criticise the Government for taking that approach. It is the proper way to manage an economy.
If the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), had followed such disciplines when he was in the Treasury team, the Conservative Government would not have faced the boom-bust problems and the huge and growing deficit which led to their being kicked out of office.
The £19 billion for schools is reduced to £13 billion when inflation is stripped out. There is only an additional £2.1 billion this year, but even that is an exaggeration as it counts local authority money that has already been spent. Most of those local authorities have already spent over SSA, so simply raising the SSA, which allows the Chancellor to come up with the phoney figures, does not deliver a single extra penny to schools.
The real comparison is with our 1 p income tax pledge, which would have put more than £2 billion into education every year. Central Government investment in education is down to only £600 million extra this year. The cumulative real total is £4 billion over three years—if they prefer to do it on that phoney three-year basis. That is less than the average under the Conservatives. By comparison, the Liberal Democrat increase would have delivered more than £15 billion extra real money over a Parliament, not the funny money that the Chancellor likes to deliver.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making untypical sense for a Liberal Democrat, and I mean that in a kind way. He almost understates the case, if anything. If we take into account the funding of the teacher pay awards in the past two years, the financing of the standards fund and other initiatives, which have been borne by local authorities, the money that is going to schools at the sharp end—at the chalk face—is even less than when we scale it down in the way that he has done.

Mr. Taylor: The Liberal Democrats support the improvements in pay for teachers. We argued that they were needed, so I will not criticise that aspect of spending, but the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that little discretionary expenditure in schools has flowed through. When hon. Members, from whatever party, go to schools and talk about revenue funding issues, they find the real problems that schools face. With the declining school-age cohort, which means that fewer pupils are coming into school, the pain will get greater because schools' funding will be lost and teacher numbers will fall. Schools in rural areas such as mine are small and have little discretionary expenditure. They will be particularly badly hit.
I turn to the final argument that the Chancellor and Prime Minister present, the latest pledge to nervous Back Benchers: they will deliver in the next comprehensive spending review. In other words, it will be all right on election night. Perhaps it will; we shall see. The Prime Minister promised an increase to European levels of health spending by the end of the second comprehensive spending review period, but did not define Europe, the average or spending.
Then the Treasury told the newspapers that it was not a promise, just an aspiration; but even if the Chancellor does announce that funding—I sincerely hope he will; I believe that he can do it—even another £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion will not do if it is funny money. If the same tricks are used as in the last comprehensive spending review, it will not save Labour seats, or schools and hospitals.
What happens on the ground will ultimately determine people's verdict on the success, or otherwise, of the Government. A promise of funny money for schools will not win a single vote if class sizes increase. A promise of funny money for the NHS will not hold a marginal if people cannot get a hospital bed when they need it, or their cancer becomes inoperable while they wait for treatment.
We have heard it before. We heard it from the Conservatives, the inventors of funny money. It is why they lost and it is a mistake for Labour to believe that hype and spin can overcome people's real experience, as the hon. Member for Walton clearly realises. They have failed to convince people over the past few Labour years. Inflated claims of extra funding deliver satisfactory headlines on Budget day, but do not deliver in schools or hospitals. People can see the unsatisfactory reality for themselves.
Worst of all from the point of view of nervous Labour Back Benchers, even real money—I hope and believe that the Chancellor will deliver that in the comprehensive spending review, because he can—will not have an effect until after the next general election. If the Chancellor offers tax cuts today, and jam tomorrow in the Budget and the spending review, it will not help someone with cancer who needs treatment now, or a child in an overcrowded classroom this year.
There is an alternative. The Chancellor has a huge war chest. He could start to spend it now, not on tax cuts but by investing in schools, hospitals and pensions this year, not next. That means that it has to be done in the next Budget, not the comprehensive spending review. An economically responsible programme for schools, hospitals and pensions could be delivered on 21 March if the Chancellor set aside tax cuts.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has a marginal seat himself, I think.

Mr. Leslie: It is not so marginal. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrat manifesto for 1997 said:
The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman fails to mention that it also said that we would give increases over and above that, and that we, unlike the Government, spelled out those increases in our costed programme. Our manifesto also pledged free prescription charges, free eye and dental tests and free television licences for the over-75s. In fact, our package was comprehensively more generous than the one that the Government have delivered. The Government offer pensioners a minuscule 73p increase, despite having the largest funding surplus in history.
Let us stick to health, however, as that was the subject on which I expected the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to intervene. From among the 70,000 nurses outside the NHS and below retirement age, we could recruit enough to fill 17,000 existing vacancies. The Prime Minister's claim that we must wait because trained staff do not exist is simply untrue. New drugs such as beta interferon are available now for multiple sclerosis sufferers; all we need is funding, and the Chancellor has

the money. Not one Labour Member—not even the hon. Member for Shipley—was elected on a pledge of income tax cuts. All of them pledged to save the NHS, prioritise education and give pensioners a fair share of rising wealth. Apart from Labour's hype, exaggeration and mathematical hyper-spin, the next CSR will include not a penny more for anyone until after the next general election.
The Prime Minister has conceded that the NHS is underfunded. He told us we must wait, but a March Budget that prioritised hospitals, schools and pensions would deliver results in April. Bigger pensions, better hospitals and excellent schools are what the country wants, what the Liberal Democrats want and what even members of the Labour party—including many Labour Members—want.
The question is whether the Chancellor will deliver. Labour Members with small majorities should hope so. Patients, pensioners, pupils and parents certainly hope so. But if the Chancellor's newspaper briefings are to be believed, the sad answer will be no. If that happens, the Labour party will throw away something important—the sense in the country in 1997 that the days of Tory lies about spending had gone, to be replaced by investment. To throw away that hope is to lose an opportunity for the Labour party, but also an opportunity to restore faith in politics, but I fear that that is exactly what the Chancellor will do.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order this stage, but it is an important one. A statement has been made to the media to the effect that the Home Secretary will issue a decision on General Pinochet at 8 am tomorrow. Are there any plans for such a statement to be made to the House, and can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ensure that the statement comes first to the House rather than the media?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statement to come before the House this evening.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the fact that the Government is making work pay and cutting taxes for hard-working families; welcomes the fact that, as a result, the tax rate on a typical family will be cut to its lowest level since 1972, and that, on average, families with children will be £740 a year better off; notes that the Liberal Democrats oppose the measures that made this possible, including the Working Families Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that the Government is making record extra investment in public services, including an extra £40 billion in health and education; notes that this is far in excess of anything promised by the Liberal Democrats at the time of the last General Election; and notes the reckless and uncosted spending commitments made by the Liberal Democrats, which they have no idea how to pay for and which would take Britain back to Tory boom and bust.'.
I welcome the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who made his first speech in his new role as Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. Frankly, however, he had a bit of a cheek talking about funny money and hype and spin because those words seemed admirably to describe his own speech. The hon. Gentleman was high on headline-grabbing statements, but


low on strategy and detail. I was grateful to hear him welcome the Government's disciplined economic management, but he failed—as his party continues to do—to appreciate how our strategy is developing.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, but if the hon. Gentleman can apply a little self-discipline and let me make some progress, I shall happily give way eventually to what will inevitably be his second Euro-question of the evening.
Any debate on tax and benefit reform and public spending must begin with the foundation of all modern economic policy-making—macroeconomic stability—and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell seemed to agree with all that I am about to say on that. Our first priority, and our continuing commitment, is to deliver and lock in a platform of economic stability, leaving behind the boom and bust of past years. Our new, modern, monetary policy framework, with an independent Bank of England, is ensuring that interest rate decisions are taken in the best long-term interest of the economy, not for short-term political reasons.
Our modern fiscal and public spending framework, based on two clear fiscal rules—the golden rule that we balance the current budget over the cycle, and the sustainable investment rule that, as we borrow only for investment, debt is held to a prudent and sustainable level—is ensuring that public finances are on a sustainable long-term footing. The hon. Gentleman claims to be committed to that strategy, but his speech demonstrated that he is not. He continues to make commitments on behalf of his party without telling us how they will be paid for.
Our transparent policy making is building confidence and long-term security. In monetary policy, there is an open system of decision making through the publication of the Monetary Policy Committee's minutes, a system of voting, and full reporting to Parliament. Already, we are seeing the rewards of creating that new framework for monetary stability. Inflation is historically low and is set to remain close to target, and interest rates peaked at half the level of the early 1990s.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend promises not to ask a question on Europe, I shall be happy to.

Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I wanted to illustrate her contrast between the Government's policy and that proposed by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). We did not need to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, because we can see Liberal Democrat practice. In Sheffield, the Liberal Democrats won last year on a platform of cutting council tax, increasing public spending on council services and reducing debt. In fact, there has been a 6 per cent. increase in council tax—three times the rate of inflation—massive cuts in libraries, leisure services and other vital services, across the board privatisation and a

£120 million increase in Sheffield's debt, which every Sheffield council tax payer will have to pay for. We heard the hon. Gentleman's waffle, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and agree that the Liberal Democrats say one thing when they have no chance of power, but do something quite different when they have an opportunity to exercise it in local authorities.
We have the same openness and disclosure in fiscal policy as in monetary policy, with key fiscal assumptions independently audited and far more information published than ever before to ensure properly informed debate and scrutiny. On the basis of prudent and cautious assumptions audited by the National Audit Office, we are firmly on course to balance the current Budget over the cycle, and, therefore, firmly on track to meet the first of our fiscal rules—the golden rule.
We are also on target on our second fiscal rule—the sustainable investment rule. Under the previous Government, national debt doubled. In the past three years, under the Labour Government, debt as a share of national income has fallen from 44 per cent. to 42 per cent., and is estimated to be 38.2 per cent. by the end of this financial year, and 37 per cent. next year.
Over the economic cycle, we will keep debt below 40 per cent. of national income. As a result of falling debt and lower long-term interest payments, in this financial year we are projected to have almost £4 billion lower payments than in previous years. That is money available for investment in front-line public services.
Thanks to the steps that we have taken to achieve stability, sustained investment and low and stable inflation, more than 800,000 more people are in jobs than at the time of the general election. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell made no mention of employment: of developing jobs and ensuring that people can work for their living.
That platform of stability, with the new deal and our measures for investment and regeneration, will enable us steadily to increase employment. Our aim is for a higher percentage of people to be in work this decade than ever before.

Mr. Phil Woolas: Does my hon. Friend recall that the major package of delivering employment—the new deal—was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, who voted against it?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. The then leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), with regard to the windfall tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Liberal Members may make noises but they always want to spend money without telling us where it should be raised, and when we make proposals on how it can be raised, they object to and oppose them. Their then leader said:
While we understand and support what the Government are trying to achieve in … tackling long-term unemployment and exclusion, we disagree profoundly with their means of funding it—the windfall tax."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 326.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Liberal Members who are sitting there sounding like sheep should understand that to replace the windfall tax to fund projects such as the new


deal they would need to put 3p on tax. They make no mention of that when they are telling us endlessly how they will spend their 1p. They have spent the magical 1 p a breathtaking number of times.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to welcome Mr. 1p to the Chamber.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that we opposed the windfall tax in principle as a wrong tax, and not the new deal, for which we had our own package? How do the Government propose to maintain the new deal programme after the windfall tax yield has been spent? Does she have another windfall tax in mind, or some other tax that we have not yet heard about?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has noticed how successful the new deal has been in getting people into real jobs. Perhaps he was not here when I explained how we have created 800,000 new jobs—real jobs—since the general election.
Having come this far, we will not relax our grip. We are doubly determined to avoid the mistakes of the Lawson era, when growth got out of control in the late 1980s, which led to stop/go, and the Major/Lamont mistake of the pre-election public spending spree of 1991–92, which was followed by tax increases in the mid-1990s. Those were attempts to make policies for political reasons that were not sustainable economically.

Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I will when I have finished this point.
Our emphasis on stability and sustainable public finances has enabled us to introduce two momentous reforms that have made a significant difference to millions of families, children and low-paid workers throughout the country: first, the comprehensive reform of the British tax and benefit system that we are now developing; and secondly, our massive programme of reform in the public services.
I hope that, when I give way to the hon. Gentleman, he will finally tell the House whether his party is still opposed to the working families tax credit and the expenditure that we have committed to public services.

Mr. Flight: The Minister spoke of economic mistakes of the past and the Government's determination to avoid them. Does that include the equivalent of locking into the exchange rate mechanism and interest rates allied to those of continental Europe, which, going in the wrong direction, arguably had the biggest impact on our economy?

Dawn Primarolo: What always amazes me about Opposition Front Benchers is their ability not to be in tune with the public debate, or indeed debate in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman would not clarify whether his party still opposes investment in the public sector—whether,

for example, it believes in privatising the national health service—but seeks to take the debate in another direction. That may speak volumes to people outside the House.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister talks about the hon. Gentleman clarifying his position on tax. Will she clarify her position on what the Liberal Democrats are proposing? Does she support extra investment in public services or the 1p off income tax that the Chancellor has announced for the coming Budget?

Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his prompt, as I come to that part of my speech. I hope that I will be able to answer his question as I deal with tax and benefit reform.
Together, our reforms to integrate tax and benefits—the working families tax credit, which the Liberal Democrats opposed; the national minimum wage; the lop tax rate; the cut in the basic rate of tax; the rises in child benefit, which the Liberal Democrats opposed; and the national insurance reforms—are for the first time tackling the causes of poverty and fulfilling our essential commitment to reform welfare to make work pay. Our commitment is that work will pay more than benefits for everyone.
The working families tax credit, introduced in October 1999, is already providing extra help for 1 million of Britain's hard-working families and increasing the minimum income guarantee for every family with children and with full-time earnings up to £200 a week—and 325,000 of those families were not in receipt of family credit at the time of the claim. The average gain to our poorest working families is £24 a week.
The Inland Revenue telephone lines, and the special working families tax credit telephone lines, have received nearly 2.75 million calls from people inquiring about the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit; that is why most people will conclude that the credits are a worthwhile and necessary innovation. People will draw their own conclusion at the next general election when the Liberals and the Conservatives say that they will withdraw the working families tax credit.
As a result of our tax and benefit measures, families with children are an average £740 a year better off. Working households are an average £450 a year better off. No family earning less than £235 per week has paid any net income tax from October 1999. The national minimum wage has boosted the hourly wage of more than 1.5 million low-paid workers—two thirds of them women—by an average of 30 per cent. The introduction of a new 10p rate of tax has halved the tax bills of 2.3 million people, of whom 1.7 million are low-paid employees.
All those measures are opposed by the Liberal Democrats. They are opposed to the working families tax credit, to rises in child benefit, to a new low rate of tax, and therefore to lifting 1.25 million people out of poverty, of whom 800,000 are children. Our tax cut to 10p as the initial rate for savings will also benefit 1.5 million pensioners.
We now have a strategy, through the new deal, to give people new job opportunities and, through the working families tax credit, to make work pay. The child care credit makes it possible for people to work who might not otherwise have been able to; and the tax changes that we are making, including the cut in the basic rate of tax, make it possible for work to pay even more for those families.
In the Budget, we shall introduce further measures that will make it possible for people in areas that have in the past been hardest hit by unemployment to find work. The debate in this country is between fairness—our tax and benefits reforms for families and the low-paid—and unfairness.
On public services, by contrast with the commitments contained in the Liberal Democrats' 1997 manifesto, our three-year spending plans set out in the comprehensive spending review give Departments and our public services the certainty and stability they need to plan beyond a one-year horizon. Based on a platform of stability in the public finances, we have been able to commit significant extra resources to key public services, at the same time as meeting our tough fiscal rules. We have committed £40 billion extra over three years to education and health. That is £40 billion over and above what those services would have got if spending had continued at its 1998–99 level. It is £40 billion pounds of extra investment which our valuable public services would not have got under the Conservative party, or, indeed, under the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I shall in a minute, so that the hon. Gentleman can respond to the following statements. In their 1997 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats promised to spend £9.5 billion over five years on education. The Labour Government, over three years, are spending £19 billion. In their 1997 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would spend £3.5 billion over five years on health. The Labour Government are spending £21 billion.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way during her recital of funny-money figures. Will she tell the House how much more would be freed for investment in public services if, in April, the Chancellor did not go ahead with a penny cut in income tax?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand, which surprises me. The Government do not take a pick-and-mix approach to policy. We have a co-ordinated strategy, consisting of stability in public finances, tax and benefits reforms to make work pay, and investment in public services. We have a poverty strategy, an economic strategy and a strategy of investment in public services. They go together, but the Liberal Democrats do not appear to understand that.
In the last three years of the previous Government, growth in education spending was £7 billion. We have committed additional education spending of £19 billion, which demonstrates our commitment to education as our number one priority. We are delivering a cash injection in health service funding of £21 billion pounds. That is more than double the cash put into the NHS by the previous Government in three years. Contrast that with the Liberal Democrats' manifesto commitment—it promised nowhere near the sums we are spending.

Mr. John Burnett: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No. I have been generous in giving way, but I must make progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to participate in the debate.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Paymaster General give way to me? I did give way to her.

Dawn Primarolo: No, the hon. Gentleman did not. I have not intervened on the hon. Gentleman, unless it was in some other place at some time that I do not now remember. I should make progress, because I am taking up valuable time in the debate.
The extra investment the Government are making in the NHS will help to deliver our 10-year modernisation programme for the NHS, so that there is equal access to high standards everywhere, and faster and more convenient services. Sixty-five per cent. of the population of England already have access to NHS Direct and more than 1 million calls have been received. We have also set up walk-in centres: there have been 36 successful bids, covering approximately 10 million people. The centres are due to open during the first half of this year.
In addition, the Government have committed £115 million to modernise every accident and emergency department that needs it; and we have introduced the NHS modernisation fund of £5 billion or more over the three years of the comprehensive spending review. In addition to that, new money is coming in under the private finance initiative. We have already signed £5 billion worth of PFI deals—that is more in two years than was achieved in the five years of the last Tory Administration.
After many years of neglect, the comprehensive spending review will provide new resources for the renewal and modernisation of the UK's infrastructure. After a 1½ per cent. fall during the last Conservative Parliament, gross investment will total nearly £30 billion pounds a year by 2001–02. For transport, the comprehensive spending review committed £1.1 billion in extra resources to modernise local and public transport, providing more than 150 new integrated transport schemes in towns, cities and rural areas. To make sure that taxpayers get value for money, our public service agreements are a contract with the people—a promise of lasting improvements in public services. In this year's spending review, we shall continue to match investment with reform, increasing the resources available for the NHS, education and our public services.
The Liberal Democrats continually criticise the Government for not spending enough on public services, but the truth is that their figures do not add up—their figures never add up, although they always make interesting statements about their 1p. For example, for the 1992 election, the basic rate of tax was 25p in the pound. Guess what the Liberals promised to do? They promised to put 1p on the basic rate of tax. Before the 1996 Budget, when the basic rate was 24p, the Liberals again promised to put 1p on the basic rate of tax. After the 1997 election, the basic rate was 23p, and the Liberals promised to put 1p on the basic rate of tax. What is the purpose of tonight's debate? It is to discuss 1p on the basic rate of tax.
The Liberal Democrats do not tell us whether they are still committed to raising tax, or whether they now recognise that a necessary part of an anti-poverty strategy


is ensuring that people who are trapped in poverty are guaranteed an income that will lift them out of poverty. The Liberal Democrats have opposed every measure that the Government have proposed to ensure long-term sustainable funding of our public services. The House should compare their hype with our proven commitment to macroeconomic stability for the long term, with our commitment to tackle the causes of family and child poverty, and with the way in which we have steadfastly invested £40 billion in our priorities—the nation's priorities—of health and education.
The Liberal Democrats always state the same old message: "Elect us and we will spend more, but we won't tell you where the money comes from. We are committed to economic stability, but we won't tell you how we'll achieve it." The Labour Government are committed to the right reforms for the long-term prosperity of the country, and I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Tonight, unusually, I feel a certain fellow feeling with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other occupants of your Chair, in that you share with me, the Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) a certain jadedness. I last arose from my bed 37 and a half hours ago and it might be because of that that I found myself less than entranced by the example of joined-up arithmetic—which, in the hands of the Paymaster General, becomes double-jointed—that was offered by the hon. Lady in her splendid, but entirely unilluminating tirade. She informed us that the Government have done nothing but good for everybody in all circumstances and with the greatest possible prudence.

Dawn Primarolo: He has got the message.

Mr. Letwin: I have indeed got the message—I could hardly fail to do so, seeing as it was repeated at roughly two-second intervals throughout the hon. Lady's speech. However, she could have saved her breath—not because anything she said was less than lovely and elegant, but because, like the nation, we in Parliament have become accustomed to such pronouncements and we no longer need them. I adjure the Paymaster General to ask her speech writer to write a different speech next time, or to get a different speech writer next time, so that her speech addresses the issues.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) raised an interesting and profound question. I am not sure that I believe that he is able to provide the correct answer; nevertheless, it is to his credit that he asked a good question. What is the Labour Government's policy on tax and spending and what ought to be our policy on tax and spending as a nation? That needs to be addressed and, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I propose to do so, notwithstanding the fact that it has nothing to do with whether the Government are all things to all men or the miracle cure for life.
As I understand it, the underlying thesis of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, which, oddly enough, is broadly the same as that in the Government's amendment, is that there is a choice between public spending going up in real terms along with the tax burden

as a percentage of GDP, or the reverse of that. The hon. Gentleman broadly asserts that the Government claim to be raising the two but are really not doing much in either direction and that we should be raising the two.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I think that I see where the hon. Gentleman is going, but we are talking about the Chancellor's choices in the short term—what he does about this year's spending. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will talk about a successfully managed economy delivering extra funding, perhaps allowing us in the long run to cut the tax burden at the same time, with which I would not disagree. The issue at the moment is whether the Chancellor should deliver a tax cut now when that would necessarily mean the sacrifice of extra Government investment in public services.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is right in anticipating part of the burden of my remarks. I still want to dwell on them because it is of the utmost importance that we understand the facts before we discuss the value that we place on them. It is also true that we must address what is to be done this year, or, more particularly, the Chancellor must address that question. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman's logic quite works at that point. However, let me pursue precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman traversed.
The Chancellor has been preoccupied with prudence. He could be called "Mr. Gordon Prudence Brown". Prudence is broadly his motto. He is different from all previous Labour Chancellors because he is determined to ensure that his miraculous golden rule and all his other possible rules will be satisfied under all possible circumstances so that no one could anyone possibly accuse him of being anything other than prudent.
I can quite see why a Labour Chancellor wants to do that, but he ignores the deepest truths of economics. It is not just the case that, in the long run, one can reduce the tax burden on the economy as a proportion of GDP and increase public spending in real terms, particularly on essential services; it is also and much more importantly the case that the one cannot be sustained without the other. That is the point on which we have a genuine difference of view with the Liberal Democrats and which I want to address.
A side point, which deserves to be made in advance—the Labour party always seeks to present this as a matter of privatisation, but I want to lay aside the political rhetoric for a moment—is that the crucial public services need not be funded only by public money. Public money is a vital ingredient for certain, and it will need to go up in real terms to anything like fund them, but there are other sources.
One need no longer look to the Conservative party for that because that well known laissez-faire Adam Smithite group of radical lunatic visionaries, the British Medical Association, has now set up a study group to look into what that famous Conservative peer Lord Winston asked it to look into in effect when he made his now famous utterances, which is whether other sources of funding have to be brought to the aid of that particular crucial public service. That is one of the ingredients that needs to be considered.

Mr. Leslie: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about private and independent money paying for


health or whatever, but with regard to the amount of public funds raised through general taxation for public services, I understood that his guarantee was that the level of public expenditure would reduce year on year, Parliament by Parliament. Is that not the nature of the guarantee?

Mr. Letwin: No, it is not. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with our policy, or necessarily even to want to present it as it is in future, but I want to ensure that, at the end of my speech, he knows what our guarantee is, and, much more importantly, why it is that way.
In addition to the question—I accept that it is a different question—of bringing to the aid of the crucial public services extra funding from the private sector, which is a vital ingredient, we also contend that we shall continue to need, as we always did under the Conservative Government, to increase by considerably more than the rate of inflation spending on the crucial public services—not reduce but increase. Spending on all the central public services such as health and education needs to go up. I shall come to the rest in a moment, but I want to get the first point into the hon. Gentleman's mind, because it would be marvellous if one intelligent Labour Member knew exactly what we were asserting so that he can go away and work out whether, as a matter of fact, any economist in the world would challenge the propositions that I am about to make.
The first proposition is that public spending on those crucial public services can and should, before we come to additional funding from the private sector, go up by substantially more than the rate of inflation. Can that be connected with, and consistent with, two other things? First, there is "Mr. Gordon Prudence Brown's" prudence. Can one, in other words, sustainably increase crucial public service spending? Secondly, can it be made consistent with reducing the tax burden as a proportion of GDP? Can those three things be put together?
Let me perform a small piece of mental arithmetic which I hope will for ever liberate the hon. Gentleman from the supposition that this is a miracle when, it is, in fact, extraordinarily simple. It is so simple that it has entirely eluded Labour Members, I think genuinely.

Mr. Leslie: Borrowing.

Mr. Letwin: No, no borrowing is involved. Let us consider the arithmetic.

Mr. Leslie: Interesting.

Mr. Letwin: Yes, it is interesting. However, when one hears it, it is not quite so interesting because it is so devastatingly simple. Public spending is about £370 billion a year. If the GDP, of which it is a part, is growing on trend—I am talking about cyclically adjusted GDP—at about 2.5 percentage points in real terms, which is, roughly speaking, what the Treasury thinks is happening—

Mr. Chris Pond: The hon. Gentleman has already sent the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to sleep.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has no doubt been asleep for some hours. He knows this already, but Labour

Members do not, and it is important that they should. I apologise for using the debate to engage in a serious argument, but it is important to get the matter straight.
If GDP goes up by 2.5 percentage points in real terms each year, as the Treasury thinks it will—the Treasury thinks that the long-term trend rate of growth in the economy is about 2.5 percentage points in real terms compound per annum, as I think the Financial Secretary would agree if called upon to do so—and it is probably about right—give or take a quarter of a percentage point, which is what the economists argue about—and if the crucial public services, which take up about one-fifth of £370 billion, are going up at about the same rate, and if all the other public services taken together, the rest of the £370 billion, are increasing by slightly less than 2.5 per cent in real terms per annum—in other words, are increasing not just nominally but in real terms by 1,1.5 or 2 percentage points each year—it will ineluctably be the case that, without public borrowing increasing an iota across the cycle, there will be a reduction in the need to tax as a proportion of GDP. This is a simple piece of arithmetic.

Mr. Steve Webb: I admire any hon. Member who uses the word ineluctably so beautifully. The hon. Gentleman gave away the Conservative position when he said that the crucial public services occupy one fifth, or whatever, of the total—by which he must have meant health and education alone. He must have excluded the state pension. Clearly, he does not regard that as a crucial public service. Given the demographic pressures on the state pension, which would eat up at least his 1 per cent. or so real rise, is he saying that a Conservative Government would never give pensioners more than the 75p that they got this year?

Mr. Letwin: No, I am not saying that and I will return to the subject. The hon. Gentleman is a serious thinker about pensions and social security in general and asks a serious question. As it happens, the serious dispute between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives concerns social security, not health and education. Before I deal with that question, I want to ensure that our friends on the Labour Benches, who have genuinely not understood what we or the world of economists are arguing about, are put in the picture so that, although they may not want to participate in the debate, they at least know what we are talking about when we are participating in it.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman said that we would have a recession.

Mr. Letwin: Yes, yes. We made the most dreadful mistakes: we went into the exchange rate mechanism, we spent too much money in 1990 and we did many other things of which we are deeply ashamed. Yes, that is true. Alas, it does not alter the facts of economics that the Conservatives should have made a mistake at some time. I hesitate to mention this, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that at some time some Labour Government may also make some slight mistake. These things happen. What do not change are the laws of economics. They are governed by the laws of arithmetic, which we all understand. If Labour Members take out their pocket calculators, they


will find that every word that I have spoken so far is not merely true but incontrovertibly and uncontroversially true.
Therefore, we are facing the issue that was raised by the Liberal Democrats—most recently, by their spokesman on social security, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and well deserved that position is too. He asked the interesting question, which is not whether one can raise by a considerable percentage in real terms—indeed, by as much as or more than gross domestic product—spending on the critical public services. By those, I mean health and education when I talk about one fifth of the expenditure, and possibly also the police and defence if one ups the figure a little. One can increase that spending and do so sustainably, with a falling ratio of debt to GDP let alone a maintained ratio, which is probably a more sensible target, and one can increase spending on the rest of the services by 1 per cent. or 1.5 per cent. of GDP each year quite comfortably. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. What one cannot do is also to allow the entire burden of social security spending, which broadly occupies £100 billion of the £370 billion a year, to rise by or faster than the rate of growth of the economy on trend—I leave aside the cyclical effects, which obviously complicate the picture on social security. One cannot do that; and that is as true as everything that I have already said.
The dispute between the serious hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the hon. Member for Northavon, and ourselves, in which the Chancellor has been an unwitting participant, actually concerns precisely how far it is or is not possible in time to constrain the growth of spending on social security in its various forms, and pensions are a major component—in such a way that one answers genuine social needs, bearing in mind all the lessons that some of us—not, alas, the Government—have learned from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who taught many of us much about this subject. We all accept that the social security budget will grow in real terms, but can one so constrain it that one does not end up either with imprudence or the need to raise taxes?
Before I say why the hon. Member for Northavon and the Liberal Democrat party are wrong on that subject, I have a further observation that undercuts any argument that they might like to deploy: in the end, one cannot fund the crucial public services that I have described, which it is the common aim of all three parties to fund, if one does not have the tax base with which to do it. That is uncontroversial. The Conservative party and I believe that having that tax base is a matter of being able increasingly, in a sort of global Laffer-curve effect, to compete on tax with the most successful economies in the world.
The new economy is changing the industrial paradigm. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed that out vividly in a speech at the Confederation of British Industry not too long ago. The new economy is making it the case that geographical proximity to one's customers is no longer the advantage that it used to be. That is not true for every good or service, but it is true for an increasing range of them. That means that the factors of production are vastly more mobile than they were. Therefore, a highly taxed economy will not have the same level of economic production that it used to have because that production will have gone somewhere else where the tax rate is lower. One may increase tax rates—not merely

income tax, but all tax rates throughout the economy—and yet, paradoxically, one may raise less and less tax revenue. That is not a basis for achieving what Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members want to achieve; it is a basis for going bankrupt.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I appreciate the interesting approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking to the debate and the real issues with which he is dealing. However, I want to be clear about how much he speaks on health funding for those on the Conservative Front Bench. Clearly, the spokesman on health and the present shadow Chancellor have both argued that the increases in health service funding that we want cannot be achieved through public funding. They have argued that it is necessary to resort to encouraging people to take out more private health insurance to meet need. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that view?

Mr. Letwin: I shall explain exactly what that position is, although the hon. Gentleman will also profit from the definitive announcements on the subject that will be made by various of my right hon. Friends in the near future, which will tally with what I am about to tell him. As it happens, I rather agree with them, for unsurprising reasons.
Two propositions need to be separated here. First, can we and should we afford as a nation substantially to increase year on year in real terms public spending on health and education? The answer is yes—that is the view of the Conservative party. Secondly, will that spending in itself be enough to answer the legitimate demands placed in a modern and wealthy society by the consumer on the health service in particular, but also to a degree on the education service and perhaps some others? The answer is, probably not—a view that is shared by the Prime Minister, who made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman adverted.
Consumers may want to spend more on health than would be implied by merely keeping pace with, or slightly exceeding the pace of, change in GDP. If they want to do that substantially, because they want new and fancier operations endlessly to get better results without the waiting lists that are caused by rationing, the services may need a lot more money than tax alone can comfortably provide if one takes the view of tax that I was taking—which is, that one must keep tax down as a proportion of GDP if one wants to sustain the tax base. Such an increase in spending may require what the BMA has described as infusions of cash from other sources.

Mr. Coaker: Privatisation.

Mr. Letwin: No, no, no! In a serious discussion of these matters, it is not helpful to bandy these slogans again. I have not made the slightest criticism of the Government in those febrile and juvenile terms and I do not intend to. Politics—in particular these matters, which are at the centre of our politics—deserve to be discussed, at least in this place, with a level of seriousness that transcends what goes on in The Sun and other newspapers that the hon. Gentleman may or may not read.

Mr. Coaker: Not the real world.

Mr. Letwin: We are talking about a very real world. We are talking about the world in which Britain is either


successful and prosperous or impoverished and trouble struck and in which the services that the hon. Gentleman and I concur in wanting to be preserved fail.
Let me return to the serious argument—the question whether, given the necessity of keeping that tax base up—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to do it, but he has had his back to the Chair for a considerable time, which is against the conventions of the House.

Mr. Letwin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure you that the pleasure of seeing you, even in our mutually jaded state, far transcends any pleasure that I have in addressing the adversaries to whom I am speaking through you.
The serious issue is whether the burden of social security can be contained to a level of real growth that is consistent with all the other objectives that I described. That is a common problem for all parties in the House and for any Government who might be ruling the United Kingdom at present. I think that that is also the issue that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and other Liberal Democrat Members are rightly raising.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent analysis by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research is very revealing on that point? It said that, if the Government were to try in the lifetime of this Parliament to achieve an increase in health spending—to reach the European Union average—by an increase in general taxation, they would in the process crowd out 2 per cent. of manufacturing output—entailing the loss of more than 100,000 jobs—increase the inflation rate by 1 per cent. annually, and—in the words of the national institute—expose the economy to the "risk of emergency taxation" if their forecasts faltered by even a little.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend gives an accurate presentation of the NIESR' s report. The NIESR is, if anything, probably still behind the curve in understanding the effects of the new economy. I agree with him that those are serious issues. As I said, although it may be perfectly possible to increase, as we must, public spending on health and education by something like as much as the trend rate of GDP growth, it will not be possible substantially to exceed that type of growth rate, if that growth is tax-borne, without it having the effects that he described.
There is a pessimism in the Liberal Democrat ranks on social security that is unjustified by the facts. We shall know the truth of the assertion that it is unjustified only in the long run. However, I think that three things have happened. The first is that there has been a significant shift in the structure of our economy. No one knows how profound the shift is, and no one knows whether the supply-side changes—the changes in the level of labour market regulation that the previous Government achieved so painfully in 18 years—have been compromised by the interventions of the current Chancellor and his colleagues.
The claim of the Government—who recognise, to their credit, the value of the labour market flexibility that they inherited—is that their current moves have not

substantially affected that flexibility: the new-found flexibility that differentiates our economy from the economy of our European counterparts and makes it more like the economy of the United States.
Let us assume for a moment that the Government's manoeuvres in that respect have not damaged the flexibility of the labour market. If so, we may genuinely have achieved a position in which the long-term sustainable rate of unemployment—the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment of our economy—has altered. If so, there is reason for supposing that the long-term, cyclically adjusted rate of expenditure on social security in respect of its quasi-cyclical components—particularly income support and the other passported benefits of a means-tested variety, including housing benefit, so far as that affects income earners and the unemployed—may now quite naturally be inclined to grow rather less fast than we had become accustomed to, because there is a damped cycle to unemployment.
I think that we will find that that is the case, although I cannot yet prove it, because it has not yet happened—we have only the beginnings of the signs of it. There is nothing yet to contradict the thesis, and there is some hope that the thesis will be proved to be valid.
There is a second reason why we should be optimistic about the prospects for growth of the social security budget, which is that the age profile to which the hon. Member for Northavon referred is beginning to turn partly in our favour. Moreover, an increasingly substantial part of the population is subject to the benefit of occupational pension schemes and properly established personal and portable pension schemes. Therefore, on the whole, average incomes—not, of course, across the whole population—for the elderly are doing quite well.
I admit—to end my rather prolonged response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northavon—that there is a major issue about the basic state pension. I do not believe that, as a country, we shall ever address that issue until we turn our minds to the question of funding the basic state pension so that, somehow or other, people are able to benefit from the growth of the economy. It is a great challenge which no party in the House has properly met.
By those means together—the advantages of our flexible labour market, the demographic shift and a proper approach to the basic state pension—we should be optimistic about the prospects of doing enough to constrain social security spending so that the proposition that I began with may obtain.
If it does not obtain, we are all down the plug-hole. If we cannot meet the demands of our voters and consumers in the essential public services, and if we cannot sufficiently look after those who most need looking after through the social security system without having either imprudently to borrow or to raise our tax burden to the level at which we can no longer complete with the world's most successful economies, we shall not be able to deal with those economies, but will instead end up with a reducing tax base and a vicious circle out of which we will find it very difficult to emerge.
It is therefore not only that I am optimistic, but that I think that we have to try to be optimistic. Otherwise, the pessimism—which is implicit in the view of the world held by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell—is profound. It is not a conclusion that I think that anyone


in the House should share. It is certainly not the Chancellor's view of life, but that is because he refuses to face most of the economic logic that I have just described.

Mr. Martin Salter: It speaks volumes that, when Liberal Democrats Members finally get their place in the sun by securing a debate in the Chamber on the important issue of public services, only 10 per cent. of their total parliamentary strength turns out to support the important and incisive arguments that their Front Benchers are trying to make.
I have become worried about the tone of this debate—I was certainly concerned about it earlier—because, unlike other Labour Members, I quite like Liberal Democrat Members. Many of my colleagues are antagonistic towards the Liberal Democrats. Although they do not say so, many of them oppose their involvement in Cabinet committees. I not only think that the Liberal Democrats are okay: I think that every council should have one. They may be largely irrelevant, but they provide useful entertainment and a useful contrast between the real world and the fantasy world which their politicians inhabit.
Only this morning—as evidence of my fondness for Liberal Democrats—I was working with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on an important debate in Westminster Hall. I was a lot more supportive of him than his colleagues were in his abortive leadership bid. I see that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is leaving the Chamber—leaving us with less than 10 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members attending the debate.
I should like briefly to contrast the taxation and public services record of Liberal Democrat councils with that of our Labour Government. Liberal Democrat politicians are quite happy to take a brave stance on taxation and to encourage other people from other parties to increase tax. But how do they react when council tax levels increase in their own local authority areas? They do not like it and are not necessarily prepared to justify it, and they whinge as only Liberal Democrats can.

Mr. Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I draw his attention to the four years for which I led Hampshire county council, when we never once shied away from increasing council tax, sometimes by as much as 14 per cent., to pay for good services. In that time, we recruited and employed 600 more teachers, 200 more policemen—whom we paid for ourselves—and more than 300 more social workers. Before the hon. Gentleman starts to knock Liberal Democrat councils, he should consider the example that we have set everyone in Hampshire, and the way in which the country's largest local authority responded to the real world. We are not shy of tax increases: we are proud of them because they delivered the services in the real world that real people needed.

Mr. Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. The Liberal Democrats' record in Hampshire was so successful that they were rejected by the people of Hampshire. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect on that.
I can only speak about the councils that I know about and of which I have direct experience. The town of Reading has far outgrown its earlier boundaries. A third

of my constituents had the misfortune to come under West Berkshire council. On the other side of town, a third of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) come under Wokingham council, which varies between primarily Conservative control and occasional bursts of Lib-Demery. It is worth looking at the level of public services provided by those councils.
In West Berkshire, which has been Liberal-controlled since 1991, a recent customer satisfaction survey found that more than two thirds of the population considered that the council had an appalling record on public services: they were dissatisfied with the level of services, youth facilities and road maintenance and felt that the council provided poor value for money.
The Liberal Democrats shed a lot of crocodile tears for public services and pensioner services, but what sort of concessionary fares scheme does Liberal Democrat-controlled West Berkshire council deliver for pensioners in my constituency? Reading, which has been Labour-controlled since 1986, provides a free bus pass at any time of the day or night throughout the Greater Reading travel area. What does the generous Liberal Democrat council deliver for pensioners in my constituency? A total of £26 worth of tokens a year. That is worth 50p a week. Someone from the edge of my constituency, which is not particularly large, who had to travel to the Royal Berkshire hospital to visit a loved one twice a week would use up their annual allocation of concessionary travel tokens in five weeks. What does the Liberal Democrat council say to those pensioners for the other 47 weeks of the year? They have to pay the full fare.
When we ran a campaign to extend a proper concessionary fares scheme throughout my constituency and into the urban areas of West Berkshire council, Sally Hannon, the chair of environmental services, said publicly that if those whingeing pensioners wanted to have Labour services, they could move to a Labour authority. That speaks volumes about how much Liberal Democrats care about public services for pensioners. I found it amusing, but sad. The Liberals whinge as only they can. They are blatant opportunists. Liberal Democrats can be easily defined: they are all things to all people.
It comes ill from the lips of people who have controlled local authorities with some of the worst standards of public service to criticise the good start that the Government have made on tax and the development and enhancement of essential public services. The Labour Government have introduced a new lop rate of tax, helping the lower-paid and halving the tax bill for 1.8 million low-paid workers. They have also introduced record increases in child benefit, and the working families tax credit, which will mean an extra £24 a week for lower-paid families.
We cannot consider the Liberal Democrats as a serious party of Government. They are on occasion a party of local government, but they certainly could not be trusted to run our national economy. As was said earlier in the debate, they have spent their 1 p in the pound many times over. In their 1997 manifesto, they said that they would spend an extra £9.5 billion on education and an extra £3.5 billion on health over five years. The Labour Government are investing £19 billion extra over three years in education, and £21 billion extra over three years in health.
The Liberal Democrat sums do not add up. We have seen their hypocrisy on spending and the treatment of pensioners. I shall end my short and friendly contribution—I could go on for a long time—with my favourite quote on Liberals. It was John Diefenbaker who said:
Liberals are the flying saucers of politics. No one can make head nor tail of them and they are never seen in the same place twice.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I have been caught by surprise being called so early, but it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who obviously sees everything through rose-coloured glasses provided by Millbank Tower, which seem to distort most things, including most of the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight.
Let us talk about the real world. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister once again failed to grasp the issues of the day and respond with any authority. He talked about long-term planning for the NHS, but the real issues facing people today are waiting lists. Labour has been in power for nearly three years and people on waiting lists have died. Not everybody can afford to wait another five years for staff to be trained or for facilities to improve.
In the real world—outside the Chamber and away from Downing Street—people are suffering real illnesses. They do not go to the doctor for nothing. They do not say that they do not mind waiting for their operation. There are many people who have been examined by well-qualified doctors, sometimes with years of experience, and perhaps then seen by a second or third doctor as well and been told that they need an operation that could be life-saving. Sadly, they are not getting those operations.
We hear promises of more money being put into the health service, and talk about the money that has already been put in. If so much money had been put in, we would have seen dramatic improvements, but the real world tells us that there have not been dramatic improvements. There is not a hospital in the country that does not have a significant problem. There are shortages of nurses, doctors and consultants, non-existent accident and emergency assessment centres and overworked and overstrained staff—yet still the Government's complacency is beyond belief when they start to talk about what they have done for the health service. If it is so good, why are there so many problems? If they have put so much in, why is there so little to show for it?
It is no good the Prime Minister telling us that 37 hospitals are to be built with the help of the private finance initiative. Five years or more from now, a Government will have to pick up the financial consequences of the PFI bids going ahead today for hospitals and schools. Those projects will screw the health service and the education system and will ruin much of what we have. The private finance initiative may be seen as a short-term solution to get the Government off the hook, but it is not a long-term solution. In the end, the buildings will cost more and less will be done in them because of that. It is about time that the nation woke up to the falsehood of the PFI as a solution for most problems. It is nonsense.
It is the same with schools. I listened with great interest this morning to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment talking about the Government's commitment to failing secondary schools. By 2003, most schoolchildren should expect to leave secondary school with at least five GCSE passes at grade A, B or C. That does not help children now. Those failing schools were there three years ago—I have some in my constituency, sadly. Overcrowded, inner-city schools are desperately short of resources and the sort of assistance that we are told is coming. If it comes five years from now, however, that is no good for today's pupils. Their one chance of a decent education is evaporating, and yet another generation of kids will be served nothing but a second-rate education.
It is no good the Secretary of State saying that he will do more. It takes time. It is a cynical trick: the Chancellor of the Exchequer is known as the Mr. Prudence of the financial world, awash with money, with a money chest just waiting to be used to fight an election. Yet kids in school desperately need better resources, better-trained teachers and better provision of education, from pre-school to higher education. It is no good having the money available now but promising to make it available in the future. It is not good enough to suggest that the majority of people are clamouring to have 1p taken off their income tax. Most of the people whom I represent have never raised that issue with me, but many have cried out for money to be put into the resources that they need.
A constituent of mine, an elderly lady, blames the Prime Minister for the death of her husband. I do not know whether it would have been possible for an operation six months ago to have kept him alive longer, but she is convinced that something went fundamentally wrong in the health service, which allowed her husband to die—that he was failed by the health service. I have told her, "You can't say that. There are lots of unanswered questions." But she believes that the Government, awash with money, did not recognise what was destroying her family. Her tragedy is mirrored thousands and thousands of times across the nation.

Mr. David Taylor: The proceeds of taking 1p off income tax are about £1.8 or £1.9 billion. Would the hon. Gentleman care to indicate how he would spread that money effectively to start to reverse the very bleak picture that he paints of a health service that costs about £45 billion a year and an education service that costs a similar amount in the current year?

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting and fair question. I am sure that he will be convinced of the merits of our alternative budget when it is announced in two and a half weeks' time. Indeed, I think that there is a good possibility that he will be so convinced that he might want to vote for it as an alternative to what the Chancellor will produce. I am sure that secretly, even the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) will have a nagging twinge in his heart come Budget day, suggesting that he might have voted for the wrong Budget.
The proceeds of taking 1p off income tax are not what the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) suggested. Taking 1p off income tax takes away resources. We need those resources. We have so much money in the kitty that we can give more and we


can also give money back to the public, but the public want us to spend more on the issues that they care about. Taking 1p off comes to more than £2 billion. There is a major difference in valuation here.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: £2.6 billion.

Mr. Hancock: £2.6 billion is the realistic figure. I am sure that when Labour was in opposition, that figure was closer to £4 billion, but it is now down to less than £2 billion. However, realistically, it is £2.6 billion.
I have lost count of the number of pensioners who have written to me in the past two months, unable to believe the announcement that they would get only 70p or so in their pensions. They thought that the press was downing the Government. They did not believe it until it happened and now they are in turmoil. It is an absolute disgrace that pensioners have had such a shabby deal from a party that pleaded with them to vote Labour for a better deal. Instead, the Government have stabbed them in the back, kicked them when they are down and are rubbing their noses in it. That is what 70p means to pensioners who do not have the ability to decide that their rent will not go up by more than the cost of inflation.

Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that the manifesto on which he stood for election made a commitment to continue to raise pensions in line with prices, and that any resources were to be directed at the poorest pensioners? Is not that precisely what the Government are doing? Are not his comments a little disingenuous?

Mr. Hancock: Unlike the Minister, we have moved on from our manifesto. We realise that we have to do more. [Interruption.] We have to do one thing or the other. We cannot stand still. We cannot stop at the point on which we fought the election three years ago—that would be absurd. The Minister has her hand over her face—even she is embarrassed by her question. She must surely realise that Labour got it wrong.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister would never have made a commitment to stick to Tory spending limits if they had known how much was in the kitty. They must be kicking each other around Downing Street.

Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend may not realise that the Minister and I share a local newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post. Is he aware that this week, night after night, that paper has published letters from Bristol pensioners who are angry at Bristol's Labour MPs for backing the 75p? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should accept that Bristol pensioners are right to be angry about that? Is the Minister saying that the pensioners are wrong to be angry?

Mr. Hancock: Bristol pensioners are right and Portsmouth pensioners are right but, even more important, the nation's pensioners are right to be ashamed of and disgraced by a Government who offer them such a pittance. Pensioners' outgoings are going up, and are more than the amount they receive from the Government. The overwhelming majority of them have no control over that.
I have discussed three matters—the NHS, schools and further education, and pensions. The fourth is transport. Over the years, going back to 1984 when I was first

elected to the House, I have lost count of the arguments about how we could solve transport problems. We all dream that an integrated transport system is up there somewhere, but Judy Garland would have had more chance of finding it by going over the rainbow with the Tin Man and the Lion than we do with the Deputy Prime Minister and his transport team.
During the past three years, everything that has been done on transport has made matters worse. The Government have tinkered with the problems. I live in a wonderful part of the country—south Hampshire—with Portsmouth as the focal point for 500,000 people. During the course of a week, most of them travel to and from that city—for work, leisure, shopping or just for the sheer pleasure of being in such a great city—but our roads are a nightmare.
There are solutions. A rapid transport link has been proposed by the local authorities and the county council. It needs a large amount—millions of pounds—to give it a kick start. I have twice written to the Deputy Prime Minister begging him to support that scheme, if he is really serious about getting people out of their cars and into public transport. He has failed miserably: "Leave it to the private sector", he says.
What is happening with our railways? We are a ferry port. Every week, thousands of lorries come through our port, but instead of our having a railhead for freight, the rail yard is to be sold off. Railtrack cannot wait to dispose of it—probably for a shopping development. There will be no provision for a suitable railhead for freight. There will be no alternative to the lorries that come through the port from Spain and France.
As a Parliament, we have failed again over our commitment to people on transport. More important, the Government have failed.

Mr. Salter: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's contribution with the same care with which I am sure he listened to mine. I wish to ask him two questions. First, what is the difference between moving on from the manifesto and breaking one's promises or shooting from the hip? [Interruption.] Calm down.
Secondly, I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider a point that I raised. How should Liberal-controlled West Berkshire council treat its pensioners when it comes to concessionary travel? He has deliberately and disingenuously avoided that point.

Mr. Hancock: The difference between moving on and breaking one's promises is that we have moved on and the Labour Government have broken their promises. That is why the hon. Gentleman looked so guilty when he asked the question. I am sure that what he really wanted me to do was to say what I have just said, so that he would not have to say it and be accused of being unfair to his colleagues.
On concessionary fares, if I were elected to West Berkshire council, I would advocate that it levied a rate that addressed the issues that the people of that area faced. We would try to find out whether concessionary fares were a big enough priority for the people. Unlike the Labour party, Liberal Democrat councillors listen and try to understand what the people are saying. We would prioritise our spending around what the people want and we might be pleasantly surprised. With my intervention


on the council—and possibly the support of the hon. Gentleman, who could encourage his constituents to vote for me—we might get a better deal on concessionary fares. That would be my ambition.
This debate gives the Government the opportunity to come off the fence. They should not sit there saying that they will give tax rebates and spend more. The majority of people cannot make that statement add up correctly and they do not believe it. That is why so many people are turning away from the Government. They feel that they have been let down.
The Government should have used the debate to say, "We have got it wrong, but we have the money to do more and to do the right thing in the real world for the people we represent." The Budget and the Chancellor's war chest will give him the opportunity in a few weeks' time to move in the direction in which Labour Members promised they would move in their 18 years in opposition and, more important, in the 18 months leading up to the 1997 election. That is why so many people voted for them. It also explains why so many people are disenchanted with them today.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall make a short speech. I believe in electoral reform and, therefore, in the politics of partnership in the appropriate post-electoral circumstances. With the greatest respect to Liberal Democrat Members, if such an approach is to come to fruition, they will have to grow up as a political party. They must start being honest and straight with people and justify where the money will come from.
Month in, month out and year in, year out, the Liberal Democrats have consistently made spending commitments that go way beyond anything that they have said that they would raise in taxation. Let us consider what has happened since the general election. In debates in the Chamber and in Standing Committee and in those that take place at local level, they have promised extra money for pensions, health, schools, public transport and housing. They have promised an end to tuition fees and to the parental contribution—and so it goes on. That is all to be paid for by 1p on the basic rate of income tax.
On a conservative estimate, the spending pledges that Liberal Democrats have made in the course of this Parliament would mean at least 5p on the basic rate of income tax. That would cost the typical family £600 a year. Do we ever hear Liberal Democrats referring to that as the cost of their proposals? Not for one moment. We see a complete lack of rigour and of basic arithmetic and they fail to square the circle. That is endemic in their politics.
Although I did not know that I was going to speak in the debate, I thought that I would try to seek out the Liberal Democrat alternative Budget from last year. I contacted the House of Commons Library, which contacted the Liberal Democrats' party headquarters and the office of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The Library was wrong because it should have contacted the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). However, I should have thought that given that the Commons Library was seeking that information from a senior Liberal Democrat, he would have informed the

Library about which Member to contact, but he did not. The alternative Budget was not forthcoming, whether or not that was due to the Liberal Democrats' lack of willingness to make it available.
That suggests either that the Liberal Democrats do not think that their alternative Budget is significant in the conduct of their politics, or that they did not want to make it available because it would have revealed that the spending commitments that they have made this evening and throughout this Parliament were not included in the document. The truth is probably a combination of those two factors.
Those tactics are repeated at a local level. A couple of years ago, I received through my letter box a leaflet from the local Liberal Democrats which criticised the Labour-run local council for the level of its council tax and in the next paragraph called for an end to universal capping of council budgets, without suggesting that there was a contradiction between the two statements.
The Liberal Democrats' national projections are disingenuous. It has already been said that in the three-year spending review the Government are committing an extra £21 billion to hospitals and an extra £19 billion to schools. We can compare that to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto pledge of a five-year commitment of £3.5 billion for the national health service and £9.5 billion for education. I am repeating those figures because not once in the debate have Liberal Democrat Members intervened to challenge our claim that although they made those pledges at the general election, they are no longer making them.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong, and he was not listening to my speech. I confirmed our policy position and pointed out that the real Government expenditure on education is nothing like as much as our commitment. The Paymaster General attempts to defend her position by giving cash figures for the Government and real figures for the Liberal Democrats. That should not fool anybody; it certainly should not fool the hon. Lady, whose job must be, if nothing else, to understand the difference between the two.

Mr. Rammell: Nothing in the hon. Gentleman's intervention denies the fact that at the general election, the Liberal Democrats' manifesto contained a commitment to spend an extra £9.5 billion on schools over five years and an extra £3.5 billion on the health service. That is what the Liberal Democrats said they would do; we have done significantly better in a three-year spending review.
There is also a complete lack of coherence in the Liberal Democrats' arguments, particularly on the new deal and the windfall tax. On the one hand, we hear that they support the principle of the new deal, but they oppose the principle of the windfall tax and voted against it. Let us follow that logic: if we had a Liberal Democrat Government, and they did not raise the £5 billion to fund the windfall tax and the repairs programme for schools, the money would have to come from elsewhere, and would cost the equivalent of 2p on the standard rate of income tax. We have never heard from the Liberal Democrats where that money would come from.
One of the Liberal Democrats' most hypocritical positions is on pensions, with their critique of this year's 73p rise, which has been levied in line with prices. I wish


that we had been able to do more, and I hope that we will be able to do so in future, but the Liberal Democrats' manifesto promised that pensions would rise in line with prices. If we had a Liberal Democrat Government, a 73p increase would still have been levied this year, so it is audacious of them to attack us on pensions.
A few weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats performed a parliamentary stunt when they voted against the uprating. If they had succeeded in their vote, there would have been no increase in pensions this year. They were indulging in gesture politics, and pensioners understand that.

Mr. Webb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Government had lost the vote that night, they would not have come back with a further uprating statement?

Mr. Rammell: I am saying that the Liberal Democrats have had an opportunity to present a fully costed alternative to that pension uprating proposal, and they failed to do so, as they consistently fail to do every time the issue is discussed.
There is a total lack of candour in the Liberal Democrats' spending plans. We hear their repeated attack on the penny that will come off the basic rate of income tax on 1 April this year. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the penny off the basic rate of income tax is to compensate for other tax changes in the system. Were the Liberal Democrats to succeed in denying that 1p cut, they would be imposing a burden of significantly more than a penny on the basic rate of income tax, because of other tax changes. However, we never hear that mentioned in debates.
I am a politician who believes in progressive taxation. I want us to build support for progressive taxation. With the greatest respect to the Liberal Democrats, one does not make the case for progressive taxation by constantly promising people more than one plans to raise through taxes.

Mr. Leslie: On the subject of promising more than can be delivered, does my hon. Friend recall the statement made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) before he was replaced? The Liberal Democrats wanted to increase the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 per head at a cost of about £28 billion. Does he believe that the penny on income tax will stretch quite that far?

Dawn Primarolo: They have moved on again.

Mr. Rammell: Yes, the Liberal Democrats have moved on, but my hon. Friend exposes the fantasy politics that is always involved in their budget-making.
With regard to our plans for public spending, I do not pretend that everything is perfect in the funding of public services. When we came to power, we had to remove a huge budget deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives. Furthermore, there had been a consistent problem in the funding of public services over 18 years.
I do not pretend that that was due to year-on-year cuts under the previous Government. Instead, there was sporadic funding. In the run-up to a general election, public spending would be jacked up, especially in schools and hospitals, and immediately after the election, the funding would come down. In contrast to that, the Labour Government are introducing step-by-step improvements in the funding of public services.
Let us analyse an example of that step-by-step approach—the £21 billion settlement for the health service over the current three-year spending review period. I asked the House of Commons Library to carry out an analysis based on the percentage increase in real terms of health service spending over the past 25 years. That shows that the current three-year spending increase for the health service is the second best three-year spending commitment over the past 25 years.
I do not pretend that that is the end of the story, and that everything is perfect in the national health service. We never promised the country that we could turn the health service round overnight. We said that we would tackle the task stage by stage. I hope and believe that the current three-year spending increase can be carried forward into the future.

Mr. Paul Burstow: From the research that the Library has done for him, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the first two years of this Administration, we had one of the worst settlements for the health service in probably 20 years?

Mr. Rammell: That was exactly the commitment that the Liberal Democrats made in their manifesto. They said that they would stick to the Tory spending limits for the first two years. Both parties committed themselves to that tight fiscal framework in the first two years in order to get rid of the budget deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives.
Let me identify some of the other areas in which we are making step-by-step improvements. Under the new deal, £3.5 billion has been allocated to fund the best quality training and job scheme that there has been in this country. The other £1.5 billion from the windfall tax is being used to double the budget for repairs in our schools.
In the first three years of the current Government, child benefit, which was frozen during all those Tory years, has been increased by 25 per cent. As for housing, which particularly concerns me in my constituency of Harlow, the release of capital receipts has made possible a 33 per cent. increase in expenditure in the first two years, and a 50 per cent. increase in the past three years. The working families tax credit has given an enormous boost to people on low incomes: 2,000 people in my constituency are, on average, £24 a week better off.
How have we achieved that progress? Most important, we have achieved it through sound economic management—by removing the budget deficit, not borrowing more than we could afford over the economic cycle, granting operational independence to the Bank of England and introducing transparency and openness to the operation of our public finances. That was crucial: without it, we could not gain the trust and confidence of the business community and investors that we need if we are to secure the economic growth that, over the longer term, represents the only sure-fire way in which we can obtain the extra investment in public services that we need.

Mr. Letwin: If transparency of public finances was the Government's prime aim, why did the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, throughout last night, resist the establishment of an independent body to set accounting standards?

Mr. Rammell: It is difficult to remember exactly what the Conservative party was trying to achieve during its


filibuster last night. It is undoubtedly true, however, that our overall management of the economy—involving the operational independence of the Bank of England, and the release of the minutes of the central committee—is introducing a degree of openness and transparency. That creates confidence, which means that investors and businesses have the confidence to invest and which, over the longer term, will generate the economic growth that we need.
If we adopted the Liberal Democrats' approach, that successful management would be blown apart. In a short time we would have a huge budget deficit. We would not be funding our spending plans, and there would be a downturn in economic growth leading to cuts in public spending. However, I do not think that that would happen under a Liberal Democrat Government. If we had a Liberal Democrat Government—and I recognise that it is a big "if"—I do not think that they would act in that way. The spending commitments would not materialise, and that would undoubtedly lead to a degree of disillusionment among Liberal Democrat supporters.
What, then, are the Liberal Democrats doing? I think that they are indulging in that old practice of the politics of gesture and the politics of opposition. They are against everything wherever it occurs, whether it is done by a Labour or Conservative council locally, or by the Labour Government nationally. They have the answer to every conceivable public ill, wherever and whenever it occurs. How do I know that? How do I recognise the beast? Because this was the condition of the Labour party in the 1980s. We learned a long and hard lesson then. We learned that it simply is not possible to treat the public in that way: a party must convince them that it has the competence to deliver on its promises.
That returns me to the critique originally advanced by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). If I recall correctly, he said that during the 1997 general election Labour had promised the earth, exaggerated and over-hyped what it could achieve. Let me say emphatically that that was not my experience when I was a Labour candidate in a marginal constituency in 1997. We specifically said that we would not promise more than we could deliver, and we were criticised for our caution. It is a good spin and a good hype to say that Labour is not delivering on its promises, but the reality is very different. It is not very sensational and not very exciting; it is about bit-by-bit improvement. That is what the people voted for on 1 May 1997, and it is what the Government are delivering.

9 pm

Mr. Steve Webb: Apart from those from Liberal Democrat Members, there has been only one thoughtful contribution to the debate, and it was made from the Conservative Front Bench. Shortly, I shall comment on the measured defence of the Conservative strategy on tax and public spending and identify the flaw in the reasoning.
I shall speak mainly about pensions, but it is important to respond to some of the implausible remarks that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made. He talked about irresponsibility and referred to the Liberal Democrat alternative budget. That document is produced every year

and is publicly available. If the hon. Gentleman had contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who is the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman—a reasonable first person to approach for a Liberal Democrat Treasury document—he would have obtained it. However, the hon. Gentleman preferred to pretend that the document was not available. If he had asked the right person, he would have got a copy.
An alternative budget is the hallmark of a responsible Opposition party. We sit down and prepare such a budget every year. The Labour party did that only once when it presented John Smith's famous budget before the 1992 general election. It got its fingers burned because when the sums were spelt out, they were not popular with the electorate. The Labour party never produced a budget in opposition after that.
That shows the difference between the two parties. The Liberal Democrats cost and prioritise their policies each year. Our general election manifesto includes a volume of costings so that the price of every pledge is provided.

Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman deposit the alternative budget in the House of Commons Library? We can then examine it line by line and add to it the other spending pledges that Liberal Democrat Members made in the Chamber, in Standing Committee and elsewhere but that are not costed in the alternative budget.

Mr. Webb: We would be delighted to place a copy in the Library. The document is published, and we hand it out to the press. It can hardly be regarded as a secret document. We are more than happy to make it available this year.
The hon. Member for Harlow outlined the Government's progress so far in fulfilling their pledges for public services. He kept mentioning three years: this year, next year and the subsequent year. However, the Government have been in office for nearly three years, of which the hon. Gentleman refers to only one. We are more than halfway through the Parliament—we are possibly almost three quarters of the way through—and it is legitimate to consider the Government's achievements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said, the record shows that the Government have spent pretty much what the Tories would have spent. Real-terms increases in spending on health and education are analogous to the Tories' achievements when they were in office.
When the Labour party took office, the mood was "Things can only get better; this is the dawn of a bright new era." However, the Government have more or less stuck to Tory spending plans. The electorate did not expect that from new Labour. People expected genuine improvements in public services; they are clearly not getting them.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in a characteristically thoughtful contribution, explained the way in which he reconciled Conservatives' pledges on health and education spending with the so-called tax guarantee. He reasoned that if the economy grows at the rate of 2.5 per cent. in real terms, and one prioritises a fifth of public spending, one can provide more than 2.5 per cent, for that fifth, if one provides less than 2.5 per cent. for the rest. That is an arithmetic truth. The


hon. Gentleman prioritised health and education; he mentioned defence and perhaps the police in parenthesis. However, he did not mention social security, describing it in his characteristic fashion as not a priority public service.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the state pension accounts for approximately half the entire social security budget. To make his sums add up, it would be necessary to freeze the state pension in real terms, and simply provide for inflation-linked increases. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that occupational pensions are increasing, but that does not save the Government a penny on the basic state pension, which is not affected by such increases. The basic state pension depends only on the number of pensioners and, to a limited extent, on contributions records, which are improving systematically every year as more women retire on larger pensions. There is therefore a real-terms, upward pressure on the state pension over and above inflation. There are more pensioners and higher average state pension receipts. A state second pension is proposed as well as SERPS. There will be pressure on the state pension.
If the hon. Member for West Dorset believes that the only way he can justify decent increases in health and education spending is through squeezing social security but he is not prepared to squeeze the state pension, what else will he squeeze? That is the unanswered question when Conservative Members claim that they will pay for their goals out of savings on welfare. Other items of public spending could be squeezed, but the hon. Gentleman said that the money would come from squeezing the social security budget. Is he willing to cut the state pension?
The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding the state pension, but surely that is a matter not for the people who will be 60, 70 or 80 in the next few years, but for people years down the line. The circle will not be squared for many decades to come because the Conservative party would have to cut the state pension or not deliver on either health and education or its tax guarantee.

Mr. Letwin: Let us return to the figures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they stack up perfectly well if the social security budget is rising broadly by 1, 1.5 or 2 per cent. in real terms—that is, below the trend rate of growth of gross domestic product?

Mr. Webb: That will not happen if the biggest single social security item, which represents about half the budget, is rising substantially faster than that because of demographic pressures and the increased average retirement pension.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is one of the acknowledged experts in the House. Does he not agree that the trend in pension growth through demographic factors has been roughly 0.5 per cent. in real terms?

Mr. Webb: One of the key differences in the coming decades will be the shift in the age structure of the pensioner population from the young elderly to the old elderly, who place a particular financial burden on the pension regime through the minimum income guarantee—the means-tested top-up--and social and health services.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a moment? The pressures caused by the increase in the

number of very old elderly people will mean that an increase of 1.5 or 2 per cent.—not only on pensions but on health—would not even allow standstill. That is the distinction. The hon. Gentleman says that the economy grows at 2.5 per cent., which provides leeway for good increases on health and education, but 2.5 per cent. on health does not even represent national health service inflation, leaving aside the growing number of very old elderly people. In my judgment he would need far more than 2.5 per cent. The Prime Minister talks of 5 per cent. Once those levels are reached—and the hon. Gentleman would not increase the basic state pension—the sums do not add up.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman's argument has shifted to a point at which it becomes true, but it is different from mine. If he is arguing that health and education increases—not only those in real terms, but ones that are much greater than the GDP trend rate—cannot be achieved without either raising tax or bringing in money from outside, he is right. He takes one view of the right way to solve the problem and we take another. Now we agree on the empirical fact and simply disagree about the policy choice.

Mr. Webb: To paraphrase that intervention, the hon. Gentleman is saying that delivering what the public want and expect from a health service in a growing economy requires beyond what the Conservatives are prepared to find in tax and that that has to come from the individuals themselves. The interesting distinction is that the Liberal Democrats say that health has to be paid for according to ability to pay, whereas the Conservatives say that private money has to come in through private insurance. Insurance, of necessity, is related to the risk of someone needing the service. Typically, older people would have to buy insurance. The non-urgent surgery to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) refers is older people's surgery and they would have to fork out because of their medical need. However, we think that people should pay for health care through general taxation according to ability to pay.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Webb: I have probably taken enough interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
The working families tax credit has been mentioned several times. Labour Members have been briefed on how many of their constituents benefit from it and the Paymaster General well knows the Liberal Democrats' views. We argued that the Tax Credits Act 1999, which introduced it, contained only one measure—the credit should be delivered through the pay packet. That is why we opposed it. None of the rates or the tapers were mentioned and the words "child care tax credit" did not even appear when the legislation was drafted. We would not remove the working families tax credit.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman attended the debate on the working families tax credit and knows full well that I gave the House a very full explanation of its design and intention. He led his party into the Lobby, on his recommendation, to vote against its introduction and he has to explain to the young families in his constituency why he wants to take that money away from them.

Mr. Webb: I shall be delighted to do so. It is a matter of record that we voted against the decision to pay tax


credits through the pay packet, and the Government have admitted that we were right. The new integrated child credit or whatever it is to be called will merge family premiums, family credit, child credits, the child care tax credits and all the rest of it. How will it be paid? Through the pay packet? No. It will revert to the parent with care. They have admitted that the central issue of principle on which we objected when they were reforming tax credits was correct.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is a very active and respected hon. Member, but he seeks to rewrite history to get his party off the hook for the fundamental error that he made with regard to the working families tax credit, as he did when he voted against the child benefit increases for parents in his constituency.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady has performed a U-turn that she is graciously trying to cover up. She is right to say now that the child credits should be paid to the parent with care. She was wrong then to try to drive that measure through the House.
Pensioners are surely the group that feels most aggrieved at the Government. I refer to correspondence in my local newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post, from Bristol pensioners who are livid that their Labour Members have voted for the 75p increase.
One of our Bristol neighbours—the hon. Member for Bristol, South, I think—recently wrote what has proved to be a rather inflammatory letter to the newspaper, saying essentially that pensioners should stop complaining because they were £4.75 a week better off.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Lady allow me to finish the point?

Dawn Primarolo: It was not me.

Mr. Webb: I am sorry. I meant the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), the Parliamentary Private Secretary. Perhaps the Minister wants to disown what the hon. Member for Bristol, East wrote. She said that pensioners were £4.75 a week better off and cited the winter fuel payment.
Obviously, no one is going to say no to £100, but what is the money for? We are in March. We are talking about the April uprating. The Government appear to be saying that pensioners can look forward to the winter fuel money. Unless I am mistaken, has it not just been spent on winter fuel? Is that not what the money has already gone on?
This April, that money has gone. All that the pensioners are receiving this April is 75p. Some of them in October will receive free television licences, but, this April, they will receive just 75p. I will reveal something even more dramatic than the fact that the 75p is an overstatement of what pensioners are getting.

Mr. David Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little disingenuous in relation to the income increases that pensioners will receive, because they and the Government are looking at the financial year that starts on 1 April 2000

and ends on 31 March 2001, which includes a range of extras to their income? Therefore, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) wrote in her letter was fair.

Mr. Webb: In the coming financial year, pensioners will get a winter fuel payment of £100. That is the same as they received this year, so it is not extra. They will get 75p extra. Some will get a free television licence so, next year, half the pensioners will get 75p more than this year. Some others will get the free television licence. That is what is happening.
I reveal a fact that has passed commentators by in all the discussion of the 75p rise. A quarter of the pensioners in the land will not get 75p. They will not even get 50p.
One million married women have such poor national insurance records that they get pensions not in their own right, but on their husband's contributions. They are category B pensions, which are worth the grand sum of £39.95 a week. When the Government trot along and say, "You can have 1.1 per cent. on that," a bit of mental arithmetic reveals that that is 45p, so 1 million married women will receive not 75p but 45p this April.

Mr. Paul Tyler: You cannot buy a pasty for that.

Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend mentions the difficulty of buying a pasty for 45p. I am not sure about the Bristol equivalent.
Not only will 1 million married women receive only 45p, but another 1.5 million pensioners, mostly women—widows and single women—receive state pensions of less than £40 a week because of their poor contribution records. They will receive 1.1 per cent., and, since some get even less than £40—perhaps £30 or £25—they will not even see a 50p piece in April. A quarter of the pensioners in the land are affected by that.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: What about the minimum income guarantee?

Mr. Webb: It is good to hear a Government Whip going on the record to stand up for pensioners. The 1 million married women who will receive 45p are almost certainly ineligible for the minimum income guarantee because they are married. A husband and wife will almost certainly rise just above the reach of the means test. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that it is all right to give married women 45p because their husbands will look after them, but they can have a few pennies of pocket money. Perhaps they can blow their 45p on two first-class stamps, if they feel extravagant and want to dip into next week's money.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The increase does not buy two first-class stamps.

Mr. Webb: That is why I said they would have to dip into next week's money.
Those women will not be entitled to any more support from the Government, and that is why my postbag groans every day with letters from pensioners complaining that we keep saying the increase is 75p but their pension books show that it is 45p. A quarter of the country's pensioners—250,000 pensioners in the south-west,


which has a particular concentration of older pensioners—are receiving only 45p. Is it any wonder that there is genuine anger about what the Government are doing?
The question is whether the Government could have afforded to do more about the basic pension. The answer, patently, is that they could. The national insurance fund has a record balance of £16 billion, and the rather cautious Government Actuary says that only £8 billion is required. In a year in which the Government have the money, they have chosen not to use it. Pensioners know that a sentence of death hangs over the basic state pension. If the money is not being put into the pension when the Government have it, it certainly will not be when they do not have it.
The basic state pension should reflect the cost of living for pensioners, and 75p does not do that.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Webb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the basic state pension should reflect the cost of living for pensioners? Which part of what I am saying is nonsense? Is it the idea that pensions should reflect the true cost of living? In fact, older pensioners, who are often the poorest and who are currently being forced through a means test, should receive substantial rises over and above the cost of living.

Mr. David Taylor: To suggest that the basic state pension has gone into decline and become nugatory since 1 May 1997 is a simple mis-statement of fact. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the process began when the pension was decoupled from increases in pay, which was the meanest act of the Thatcher era?

Mr. Webb: I suspect that we could collect several hundred election addresses by Labour candidates berating the Conservative party for breaking the earnings link. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's election address did so. Labour thereby raised pensioners' expectations that something better would come along. Specifically, the Labour manifesto pledged that pensioners should share in the rise in general prosperity, but 75p is not such a share. Pensioners are angry with the Government. They feel that they have been let down, and they are right.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I had not intended to speak tonight but was so overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of Liberal Democrat complaints about the Government's spending plans—the Liberal Democrat manifesto clearly stated that that party's spending plans involved far less than ours—that I felt compelled to say something.
In my constituency, the Liberal Democrats habitually send out leaflets berating the Labour party for not spending more on education. The Liberal Democrat promises of £9.5 billion over five years, as compared with our £19 billion for education over three years, make a mockery of those leaflets.
The people of Cambridge should realise that if we had had that fantasy-land Liberal Democrat Government, they would not have got the increases in education that we have been able to produce. Cambridgeshire has had an increase in standard spending assessment year on year at more than double the rate of inflation. From April, the SSA per pupil will be higher in real terms than it ever was under the Tories.
It is true that schools are still feeling the pinch and feel that they do not have enough to spend on education, but while the Government have increased their spend on education, the Tory county council has reduced its contribution. Cambridgeshire education has lost £3 million overall, which has not been passported from the Government's generous increase. In 1998–99, the county council did not passport the full increase to education but kept back £1.6 million. In 1999–2000 it kept back £3 million. Next year will be the first in which the full increase has been passported to the education budget. Schools will certainly begin to see the benefit of that.
In addition to the increase in SSA, schools in Cambridgeshire have benefited from many other resources. This year, for example, we had £1.8 million for the reduction of infant class sizes, which delivered 11 new classrooms and 69 teachers, so now only 7 per cent. of infants are being taught in classes of 30 or more, as compared with 37 per cent. the previous year.
Cambridgeshire has had a huge programme to remove asbestos and update classrooms and has received £2.3 million from the new deal for schools and a massive £11.2 million from the standards fund, which has gone into numeracy, literacy, school improvement, school leadership, ethnic minority teaching and many other investments that all lead to much higher standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all people. That is true: they say one thing in one place and take an entirely different line in another. They appear to be opposing a tax cut here, and on Cambridgeshire county council they have proposed a 9.5 per cent. increase in council tax, but on the city council they propose a reduction in council tax. There is not much consistency.
It must be difficult for the Liberal Democrats in places such as Cambridge, where there is an excellent city council that has managed to keep council tax steady for several years running. Not only did they con voters in Arbury ward at the recent by-election, but they sent round a newsletter promising:
All you have to do is tell us what you want to spend the money on.
What happened when the Liberal Democrat councillor was elected? At his very first council meeting he voted to axe the funding for much needed facilities—new basketball and BMX facilities and closed circuit television for improved security—amounting to £170,000 over the next two years. Residents had asked for all those things. All the proposals had been discussed with the residents and agreed, and then the Liberal Democrats, en bloc, voted against them.
Councillor David Howarth, economic policy adviser to the Liberal Front Bench and a great economic literate, was quoted in the Cambridge Evening News on 18 February as saying:
We are only cutting the future investment, not the past.
What the Liberal Democrats will do once they get in a position to make decisions beggars belief.
I listened with great interest to the exposition by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the way in which the Conservatives would keep to their promise of reducing the total tax take while achieving increases in services. The weakness in his argument lay in the assumption that Conservatives could achieve a consistent


growth rate of 2.5 per cent. It takes a big leap to go from "We've got 2.5 per cent. now," to "therefore, a Conservative Government would produce 2.5 per cent. growth year on year."

Mr. Letwin: I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not catch my phrase. I was talking about the trend rate of growth, which is measured across 15, 20 and 25 years and has been measured by the current Treasury as having been, on trend, 2.25 per cent. throughout the Conservative period of Government.

Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will be lucky to find a Conservative Government that lasts 25 years. In view of the mistakes made by the last Conservative Government, any Conservative Government would be extremely lucky to achieve a growth rate of 2.5 per cent. even for five years. As a Member of the last Parliament, I remember a former Conservative Chancellor saying that unemployment was a price worth paying—that was the Conservative philosophy.
The Labour Government have got 800,000 more people in work and we have a great deal to be proud of. We have created pathways out of poverty for millions of people. Lone parents who were trapped on benefits throughout the Tory period in office are now being encouraged to return to work when their children start school. Work is being made to pay through the working families tax credit. The long-term unemployed—many of whom have not worked since leaving school—are finding a new life and new security with work that was previously unavailable to them. At the same time, we have introduced the national minimum wage, which also helps to make work pay. Family-friendly policies are helping people to manage work and home, as do increased child care facilities and investment in public transport—for millions of people, the only way to get to work.
The great advantage of all that is that more people in work mean more revenue for the Exchequer. All the Liberal Democrats talk about is 1p on tax, which would put more people into the poverty trap and do nothing to increase employability. They oppose the new deal and offer no long-term policies to keep our economy sound and stable while achieving steady increases in GDP. I think that the electorate see through the Liberal Democrats and know where a secure future lies—with the Labour Government.

Mr. Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to wind up the debate. I start by focusing on the difference that has emerged during the debate between those who account for things in real terms and those who account for things in cash terms. That lies at the bottom of all the wriggling that Labour Members have been doing during the debate and which they have to do every day, every week, in every radio interview and in every press article.
The mess is entirely of the Labour Government's own making. At the start of the Parliament, they took the cynical decision that, for the first two years of the Parliament, they would leave in place Conservative spending plans. They did so in the hope that electors would blame the Conservatives for all the pressures and

strains that emerged in public services—it would be the legacy of the Conservative years. They planned to switch the money into public services in the latter half of the Parliament so that, at the next general election, the good old Labour Government would have saved the day, with the result that voters would sweep them back into office out of gratitude for their policies. There has never been a clearer example of bust-and-boom policies.
The most uncomfortable point of a strategy of that shape is felt around the third year, when the public become cheesed off about the lack of improvement in public services and rather more doubtful that all the problems can be blamed on the previous Administration. At that stage, there is no sign of the improvements that the general election campaign led them to expect. They optimistically look out for such improvements every time they collect their child from school or suffer the misfortune of being put on a waiting list to go into hospital.
The Paymaster General either does not understand the difference between real terms and cash terms—I rather doubt that—or she hopes that the rest of the world is too stupid to understand the difference. However, it is not. People hear all about the Government's marvellous multi-billion pound expenditure, but when they go into hospitals they look around and wonder where on earth it has got to. They are beginning to suss that the £18 billion and £21 billion are funny money.
A doctor put the matter to me in this way: "Mr. Harvey, if my son grows three inches in one year, another three inches the second year and another three inches the third year, after three years he will have grown nine inches, but in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that child has grown 18 inches." That is the difference between the figures that are being bandied between one side of the Chamber and the during this debate.
The Liberal Democrat manifesto, which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) is more than welcome to look at, talks about real terms increases in spending over and above anything that could be accounted for by inflation or growth in the economy. The Government are bundling together successive years' worth of inflation, adding them up in compound form and then comparing that with what we were committing to as a real terms pledge.
There was an interesting exchange between the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who wanted to know the difference between moving on and breaking a manifesto promise. The difference comes down to whether one does more than one promised in a manifesto or less. We are saying that, in the light of the fact that growth in the economy has been much better since the election than we might have predicted at the time, it is only reasonable that people should be doing more than they said they would do in 1997. The Government are doing much less than they were going to do then and they are resorting to spin, confusion and trickery to put people off the trail.
I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State for Health when he introduced the finding of the NHS beds inquiry. Everyone knows that we have far fewer beds than we had years ago. We now have 95 per cent. bed usage, whereas 20 years ago, it was 75 per cent. During a winter crisis such as we have just had, the strains are all


too clear to see. That inquiry compared the number of beds per head of the population here with the figures in every other civilised country, from which the Secretary of State concluded that Britain is making more efficient use of its beds than any other country. If I have ever heard new Labour spin, that is it. It is a fine way of explaining that we have far too few beds and that the situation here does not stand comparison internationally in any shape or form.
If we focus on the health service, many announcements have been made in just the past couple of weeks. One fifth of patients are waiting four hours or more in accident and emergency departments, and 57,000 operations were cancelled on the day last year. Those on in-patient waiting lists rose by 36,500 in January. In my region, the south-west, there are more people on in-patient waiting lists than when the Government took office. The Government's usual con is to try to pull the wool over people's eyes on the difference between out-patient and in-patient waiting lists. But for all the Government's trumpeted achievements, in the south-west there are more people on in-patient waiting lists than there were when the Labour party took office three years ago.
The number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for their first out-patient appointment—the true measure of how long people have to wait—has grown from 248,000 in March 1997 to 512,000 in March 1999, and those are the Department's own figures.
Returning to the efficient use of beds, it is worth remembering that each year in the national health service more than 100,000 people catch potentially fatal infections, 5,000 die of such infections and they are implicated in a further 15,000 deaths. That is the efficient use that we are making of beds in the NHS—we are pushing people through hospitals so quickly that the places are filthy and infections spread.
I have no doubt that that is a further example of the efficiency that the Secretary of State for Health will proclaim, but the cost to the NHS may be as high as £1 billion a year, according to the National Audit Office.
In the midst of confused recruitment policies, the bill for agency nurses stands at £344 million. It has increased from £264 million in one year—extraordinary growth for a completely unnecessary budget head.
During the national beds inquiry it was concluded that more intermediate care beds were needed, for example, in cottage hospitals. However, the Government have been going full steam ahead to close down such hospitals. Two have closed in Lincolnshire, two in Oxfordshire and two in Devon, including one in my constituency, which is theoretically still open, but when one visits one finds it closed—although it is still being paid for, heated, lit and cleaned. Once again, all that is being done in the name of efficiency.
People who go to hospital, or indeed to schools, see only too clearly that, for all the billions of pounds that the Government so lavishly trumpet as having been spent, there is not much improvement. Head teachers ask why the £19 billion for education is not reaching their schools. They are fed up with hearing: "Trust me, I'm a politician. The cheque's in the post. There'll be more money in your budget because the Government have allocated £19 billion." The fact of the matter is that head teachers can all see through that. It is no wonder that Labour

Members are wriggling—they have not got away with the con on which they embarked at the start of this Parliament.
For all the Labour talk of fair funding, in education in particular the Government have not put right some of the grotesque geographical anomalies as between funding in different areas. It cannot be right for a primary child in Derby to be funded at £1,000 less than a primary pupil in Lambeth, or for there to be a gap of £1,370 per pupil between the best—Kensington and Chelsea—and the worst funded, Bradford. Even in two adjacent Labour-controlled London boroughs—Tower Hamlets and Hackney—there is a difference of £300 a head between secondary pupils. However, we hear that the Government are taking national initiatives: the national curriculum, national tests, national league tables, and inspection of schools according to a national framework.
Funding disparities that have become grotesque remain in place and the Deputy Prime Minister says that he intends to do nothing about it for three years. There is a distinct lack of equity, in addition to the lack of transparency to which I referred, in the Government's presentation figures.
I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who spoke for the Conservatives. I did not agree with his prescription, in particular for the health service, where the Conservatives seem determined to ensure a large increase in the number of people who take out private health insurance. I am not sure which of the three strategies that I can identify they will pursue. The first would be to compel everyone to do it; the second, to use taxpayers' money to bribe everyone to do it; and the third, merely to continue to run the health service as the Labour party is doing and to drive them to do it out of sheer desperation. It must be one of the three.
However, the one thing on which I did agree with the hon. Gentleman was that, unlike those on the Government Front Bench, he was ready and willing to accept the difference between cash-terms increases and real-terms increases. He had a different estimate from ours of what we would be able to afford out of economic growth, but at least he recognises the figures for what they are and has his own response.
Throughout the debate we have also heard from the Government that the Liberal Democrats make spending commitments, but never say from where the money will be paid. For goodness' sake, the point of today's debate is that we have tabled a motion to say exactly where one could get £2.6 billion for whichever public service one chooses. The Government are in power and they can decide which are the highest priorities. I have given examples of the state of the health service, and every hon. Member will appreciate the accuracy of my description of the situation in schools from visits that they have made to schools in their own constituencies. The Government will have to decide which matter to make their top priority. Can anyone really doubt that our public services require investment of £2.6 billion?
There is also absolutely no evidence that the public want a tax cut now—the very opposite is the case. All recent polls have produced the finding that 80 per cent. of the public would prefer that sum to be spent—now, in the coming year—on public services to a tax cut.
It is also interesting that, month after month, the Bank of England is having to increase interest rates, partly because of its great concern about a consumer spending


spree. So how on earth could it make any sense whatever to put £2.6 billion into consumers' pockets? A tax cut makes no economic sense, the public does not want it, and an array of tasks in the public service are waiting to be done.
Labour Members made other untrue statements about the positions adopted by Liberal Democrats Members on various issues. It is absolutely nonsense to say, for example, that we opposed the minimum wage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) explained particularly accurately not only why we voted against the legislation introducing the working families tax credit, but why we have no objection whatever to the principle of it. The Paymaster General replied that, in the debate on the legislation, she had explained in great detail how the system would operate. Undoubtedly she did so, and did so very well. However, when the votes on the legislation were cast, they were cast simply on the system that it proposed as the method of payment. The Government themselves have now accepted that that system was a mistake. They have also said that they will make new payments by a different system.
The Paymaster General was therefore expressing the hope that, at the next general election, Liberal Democrat Members will be going round the country arguing for removal of the working families tax credit. She could not be more wrong about that. We have not opposed it in principle at all.
The Government are in a bit of a bind. They have a comprehensive spending review coming out in July, but the sum that that review will produce—which undoubtedly will be exaggerated, compounded, multiplied and goodness knows what else—will not be available before the general election, if it is held next spring. Their problem—assuming that opinion polls are still propitious for a general election next spring—is that, if they have only a four-year Parliament, and if the electorate examine the boiled-down, hard reality of the results of their year-on-year public expenditure increases, they will have barely achieved the public expenditure increases that the Conservatives achieved in their years in office.
If the Government manage to include a fifth year in this Parliament, they will manage to surpass by only a short nose the previous Government's achievements in public expenditure increases. On current expenditure, however, the Government will struggle even to be able to boast that.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: It shows.

Mr. Harvey: It does show; it shows in all the public services. I have already discussed health at length, and mentioned the problems in education. Other Liberal Democrat Members talked about transport, which is another issue on which the public—in opinion polling and, as all hon. Members will know, based on anecdotal evidence—are grossly dissatisfied. The public believe that transport has become appreciably worse since the general election. Although they are disappointed that there has not been more progress in many other spheres, they believe that transport has become worse.
There we have it: a Budget coming up; an opportunity to reverse a £2.6 billion tax cut that people do not want and for which there is no economic justification; an

opportunity to put money into any of the public services that the Government choose: and Liberal Democrats saying where the money should come from. The Government are not so much guilty of having made exaggerated claims at the previous general election—the promises that they made were very modest: progress in health, in education and for pensioners—as of proposing to deliver a tax cut. They never said that they were going to do that. People did not want it then and they do not want it now. The Government will be judged on polling day not on the tax cut that people did not want, but on the state of hospitals, schools and the pension. On their record so far, I am certain that they will be deemed to have failed on all three.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Government's vision for the public services rests on the new foundation that we have built—the new platform of stability in our economy that is almost without precedent in our history. What a contrast that is with the position that we inherited after the general election. The Tory legacy was £28 billion of debt after 18 years of boom and bust. We have turned that round. The Conservatives said that we could not do it, but we have. The Tories tried and failed, but we have succeeded. Our challenge now is to lock in that new stability for good so that we can build on it for the long term. We are determined to do that.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to set out with optimism in November's pre-Budget report our new ambitions for the coming decade. We should be catching up on productivity with our major competitors after decades of slipping behind under the Tories. We should have a higher proportion of people in work than ever before. After less than three years of this Government, we have more people in work in Britain than we have ever had, but we are aiming even higher to achieve the highest proportion ever, and to do so on a durable basis.
We want to halve the number of children in poverty in the next decade, on the way to achieving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's target of the abolition of child poverty within 20 years. Another aim is that, for the first time, more than half of our school leavers should go on to study for a degree.
All those ambitions are achievable if we lock in the new-found stability and build on it for the long term, as we are determined to do. We cannot afford to abandon swathes of our people, as the previous Government did. Younger people and older people were dumped on the scrap heap when they could have been providing for themselves and contributing to the economy. We are building a fair society with employment opportunity for all, where everybody has the chance to develop to their full potential and nobody is left out.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is customarily courteous in giving way. On a matter of genuine interest, will he tell me whether he believes that he and his colleagues have abolished the economic cycle?

Mr. Timms: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that, because I wanted to ask him about the economic cycle. We have had an interesting debate—


much more interesting than the one that he and I participated in during the early hours of this morning, together with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's presentation of his party's tax guarantee and the mechanics of how it would work—setting aside cyclical effects, as he added in an aside.
That brings us to the point that the hon. Gentleman has just put to me. What about the cycle? The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, will have made the calculation that the hon. Gentleman put to the House during the debate. It may have been made with the advice of the hon. Gentleman—I do not know what his role was in the 1992 election campaign. On that basis, the former Prime Minister promised that there would be no tax increases under his Government. That is the same basis that the hon. Gentleman has spelled out in the debate. Within a few months of that promise being made, we had 22 Tory tax rises. The failure to achieve stability in the economy caused a huge problem for the previous Government. Our success in securing stability over the past three years has made all the difference and allows us to plan for the future with confidence.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Timms: I shall not give way again, because I want to make progress. I am encouraged by the article in The Times on 10 February about the Tory tax guarantee, which said:
Mr. Portillo's economic team is working on proposals to make the guarantee more believable.
We look forward to hearing those proposals. No doubt we shall return to the subject before too long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made a telling contribution, for which we were grateful. He pointed out the reality of what often happens with Liberal Democrat administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, along with other hon. Friends who spoke in the debate, pointed out that Liberal Democrat representatives take entirely contradictory positions in different parts of the country. Their sums frequently do not add up—my hon. Friend is absolutely right on that score.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) also made an interesting contribution. He said that people cannot wait for doctors to be trained. Well, new doctors have to be trained, and that is what we are doing. It is a necessity when it comes to improving the health service. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it takes time. There is no short cut, however—we want high-quality staff in the health service and we are taking steps to ensure that we get them.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised the Government's programme of hospital building. I do not agree one jot, and I do not believe that the country does. We have the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the national health service, and that is what the people of this country want.
The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting point—one of the most telling contributions to the debate, in fact—when he told us that his party had moved on since its manifesto. We will deliver on all the commitments in our election manifesto, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Hancock: The Minister is extremely courteous in giving way, despite being on dodgy ground. I am not

against building hospitals—I just think that they should be built the right way. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that private finance initiatives are the best and only way that we can build the hospitals that we need?

Mr. Timms: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is hedging on what he said before. The PFI is a very successful mechanism, which is why we have secured the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the health service.
Our commitments are to economic stability and sustainable public finances. That is what has provided us with a foundation for two hugely significant programmes, modernising our public services and integrating tax and benefits. On public services, which we have said a lot about in the debate, the new stability has allowed us to make record extra investments in our public services, including the additional £40 billion for improvements in health and education provision. That is new investment for the future, reflecting our priorities and the nation's priorities, to build a modern Britain and a decent society. It is far in excess of anything that was promised by the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, even though they have since moved on from it.
Health spending is improving every year. There are real-terms increases of 5 per cent. every year of the comprehensive spending review. Spending on health is now 10 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1997. We are building more than 30 new hospitals, the biggest hospital-building programme ever. We have introduced modern delivery channels, such as NHS Direct and walk-in clinics, and we have set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to take the lottery element out of health care. Every accident and emergency unit in the country that needs it is being upgraded. We are employing more nurses and doctors. There is an immense programme of investment and improvement in the health service. People using the health service and working in it would not recognise the grim picture painted by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey).
On schools, with our 16 per cent. real-terms increase over three years, we are getting 6,000 more teachers into schools and 800,000 more students into further and higher education. We are modernising 15,000 schools with extra money from the new deal and connecting every primary and secondary school to the internet. This is very telling: in 1997, barely one school in 10 was connected to the internet. Now two thirds of them are, the highest figure in any G7 country. The number of primary schools connected has increased fourfold just in the past year. By 2002, every school in the country will be connected to the internet. That is the scale of our commitment, and we are delivering on public services.
On tax and benefit reforms, we are cutting the taxes of hard-working families across the country and making work pay so that it pays to do the right thing and get a job. Too often in the past, people have faced unemployment traps and poverty traps. The Tories built them into the system; we are designing them out. Our policies are tackling those problems; we are raising the incentives to do the right thing and building a fairer society, with employment opportunity for all.
The national minimum wage—the first in our history—was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. It is boosting the hourly wage of 1.7 million low-paid workers and helping to ensure that it is worth their while to be in work.
We have introduced income tax reforms; the 10p starting rate and the cut in the basic rate increase the rewards for work, especially for the low-paid. That is our priority and it is right. We are improving incentives for work.
National insurance contributions are being reformed to lift the burden on the low-paid and on employers. The working families tax credit is helping to make work pay for about 1.4 million working families—giving them, on average, £24 a week more than they would have received under family credit.
Together, those reforms are guaranteeing a minimum income of £200 a week for families with a full-time earner. No family earning less than £235 a week—that is about £12,000 a year—will pay net income tax.
That is why the unemployment total has been falling month after month. The claimant count is down 30 per cent. The employment rate in the UK is now higher than in almost any other OECD country. We have a strong economy and there are vacancies in every region of the country. Work incentives are being sorted out. People are able at last to move off welfare and into work.
The new deal was opposed by the Tories; the financing mechanism for it was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, as they confirmed today. The new deal focuses on helping our youngsters to build the future that the Tories always denied them. Long-term youth unemployment—of more than six months' duration—has fallen by a staggering 70 per cent. since the election. It is lower now than it was at any time under the Tories. If any Tories were in the Chamber, they should be listening—as should the Liberal Democrats—because they opposed the policies which made that fall possible. Of course, youth unemployment is lower than it was during the Tory busts, but it is also lower than it was in any of their booms—lower than at any point during the 18 years of Tory government.
Tens of thousands of young people who, in the past, would have been dumped on the dole for years—quite often for ever—have now been given a hope for the future. They are able to get used to the idea of going out to work every day, and have been given the chance to build a decent life for themselves and for their families.
Julie Haydock is from my area in East London, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor visited yesterday. After 15 years of unemployment, she is now in a job thanks to the Government's initiatives. She was quoted in a newspaper today. She said that she has a
new sense of self esteem.
She is speaking for thousands.
We have not finished yet. There is more to do. As my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, there is more help to come for unemployed people so that they can make the most of the opportunities that our economy is creating. About 1.25 million people are being lifted out of poverty by our reforms—800,000 of them children. We are building the fairer and more modern society that we all want to see.
Nearly three years ago, we inherited a pattern of large budget deficits, a steeply rising burden of public debt and massive neglect of public services and public investment. At present, we are delivering what Britain has been crying out for years. After the cynicism of the past, there is a new conviction that we can change things for the better in our nation and in our time. Our ambitions—the nation's

ambitions—are for enterprise and fairness and for a decent and modern Britain. Those are no longer hopeless pipe dreams; they are being delivered in every part of the country.
Of course, there is more to be done, and in the coming weeks, in visits to every region of the country and then in the Budget, we shall be setting out the next steps in our programme. There will be more jobs; more opportunities; better services and a better future. That is our pledge and we are going to keep on delivering it.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 280.

Division No. 93]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Baker, Norman



Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Oaten, Mark


Burstow, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Rendal, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Stunell, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Feam, Ronnie
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Hancock, Mike
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sir Robert Smith and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Tom Brake.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burgon, Colin


Alexander, Douglas
Butler, Mrs Christine


Allen, Graham
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barnes, Harry
Casale, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Caton, Martin


Beard, Nigel
Cawsey, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chaytor, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Berry, Roger



Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Borrow, David
Clelland, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradshaw, Ben
Coffey, Ms Ann


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Coleman, Iain


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Colman, Tony


Browne, Desmond
Connarty, Michael


Buck, Ms Karen
Cooper, Yvette






Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cranston, Ross
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cummings, John



Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kemp, Fraser


Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Denham, John
Kidney, David


Dismore, Andrew
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobbin, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Drew, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Efford, Clive
Lock, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Love, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McDonnell, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McNulty, Tony


Flint, Caroline
MacShane, Denis


Flynn, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Follett, Barbara
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mallaber, Judy


Foulkes, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Goggins, Paul
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin


Gunnell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mountford, Kali


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hill, Keith
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hood, Jimmy
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Hope, Phil
Pickthall, Colin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Lindsay
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pond, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pope, Greg


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen





Powell, Sir Raymond
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Trickett, Jon


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Ruddock, Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wicks, Malcolm


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wise, Audrey



Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter
Wray, James


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Clive Betts and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mrs.Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the fact that the Government is making work pay and cutting taxes for hard-working families; welcomes the fact that, as a result, the tax rate on a typical family will be cut to its lowest level since 1972, and that, on average, families with children will be £740 a year better off; notes that the Liberal Democrats oppose the measures that made this possible, including the Working Families Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that the Government is making record extra investment in public services, including an extra £40 billion in health and education; notes that this is far in excess of anything promised by the Liberal Democrats at the time of the last General Election; and notes the reckless and uncosted spending commitments made by the Liberal Democrats, which they have no idea how to pay for and which would take Britain back to Tory boom and bust.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill

Postponed proceedings on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed.

Mr. Andrew George: It is surprising that a matter that was not considered sufficiently important for the annual report at the time is now considered important enough for primary legislation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, so that we may proceed with the Second Reading debate?

Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question that I raised earlier was whether it was appropriate for a public body to behave as the Sea Fish Industry Authority had done in not referring to the concern about the grants issue in the annual report. It was considered not important enough for the annual report, yet the Government consider it important enough for primary legislation.
This is a narrow issue, and the House should move on as quickly as possible so that at a later stage we shall have the opportunity to examine the legal advice that the Government receive. We must not put the future of the SFIA, it charges or its grants in jeopardy, as it is important, especially for sea safety, that we get the matter right.
In view of recent tragedies at sea and the fact that the Wolfson report has raised questions about the stability of beam trawlers, those issues need to be properly investigated. Concerns have been raised about single-handed fishermen and about whether it is appropriate for single-handed fishing boats to go to sea without those fishermen wearing life jackets. There are still questions pertaining to the Government bringing forward a code for under-12 m vessels.
Liberal Democrats will support the Government if the House divides on Second Reading, and we hope that our questions relating to a narrow and retrospective Bill will be addressed.

Mr. Eric Forth: I do not think that the Minister did full justice to the Bill when he introduced it. Although he took great pains to explain the details and the technicalities, I was disappointed that he did not refer at any length or in any depth—indeed, he may have mentioned it hardly at all—to the element of retrospection that is hidden in the Bill.
In fact, it is not all that hidden. In a written reply on 5 November 1998, the Minister himself said:
The Government intend when the legislative programme allows, to introduce legislation to provide retrospective statutory authority for technical charges levied.—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 660W.]

The Minister, then, has told us that the Bill has retrospective effect—and, indeed, clause 1(1) says that
The Sea Fish Authority shall be taken to have had power to make … charges.
This is an explicitly retrospective measure—a Bill that looks backwards, in which the Government are saying, "We want to ensure that what has been happening is now legitimised."
I believe that, in normal circumstances, that principle would deserve a considerable airing, but on this occasion I simply cite it as an element that I think may have to be explored during the Bill's subsequent stages. I am putting down a marker: I am saying that I do not think that that element should be allowed to pass unmentioned or unnoticed, or, indeed, unjustified.
Traditionally, retrospective legislation is frowned on in the House. When I first came here, not all that many years ago, I was told that in parliamentary terms it was taboo, or forbidden. Here it is, however, sliding into the practices of the House—and certainly those of the Government—without so much as a by your leave, and with barely an explanation.
Paragraph 17 of the explanatory notes states:
By ensuring that these charges were validly levied the Bill will secure a possible saving in public expenditure—
which I would normally support—
in avoiding any obligation that might otherwise arise to fund repayments.
In fairness to the Minister, he made some reference to that, but I think we may want to explore—perhaps in Committee, or perhaps later—the question of what the Government are trying to slide away from in that seemingly innocuous phrase. It is not in itself a sufficient justification; it is a statement avoiding any obligation—which makes me rather nervous in any event—and I feel that it requires a much fuller explanation.
I was surprised by one aspect of the Bill. I shall not dwell on it unnecessarily now, but I want to make the point. As far as I can tell, the Bill's legislative origins date back to at least the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951 and its successor Acts: I think that there have been seven or eight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): No.

Mr. Forth: I should appreciate a brief explanation from the Minister of why that is not the case.
Section 15 of the 1951 Act explicitly refers to the charging of "fees for services rendered". I should have thought that it would be at least possible that—given the way in which the measures have appeared over the years, one succeeding another, setting up a succession of authorities—authority for charging might have been carried forward from the explicit reference to fees in 1951 to current legislation. In our short debate, some doubt has been expressed about whether the problem described by the Minister really exists to that extent, and, consequent to that, whether the Bill would solve the problems.
A number of questions have arisen which the House will want to examine properly and in detail. It is perhaps not appropriate to air them at great length now, but there is more to the Bill than the Minister wanted to reveal in his opening remarks. The Minister understandably wanted


to portray the Bill as a technical measure, which blocks a loophole. My view is different. The Bill raises important issues of principle, which will require more careful examination. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with those matters subsequently, if not now, and to satisfy the House for the purposes of Second Reading. We can then consider these matters in much more detail in Committee and on Report.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I want to answer some of the points that were made about a narrow and technical Bill. The hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for St. Ives (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) dealt with the thrust of the Bill and understood the purpose of the measure.
The Bill will make legal charges that were levied under the previous Administration. The main period of time that the Bill covers is 1981 to 1996. It includes the Herring Industry Board, but that is inevitable in a catch-all Bill that applies retrospectively. I accept that retrospective legislation is not desirable, but the Bill applies retrospectively to tackle a problem that we inherited from the previous Administration.
Questions were asked about the White Fish Authority and whether it had the authority to make charges. The White Fish Authority had that ability, but it was the predecessor of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. There is no problem with the charges that were levied before 1972.
I was also asked about the ability of the White Fish Authority and the SFIA to make charges. They were deemed to have made charges on behalf of Ministers. I dealt with that point in my opening speech. Ministers may require charges to be made on their behalf, but if they give an agency the authority to levy charges, they must initially have the authority to grant the agencies power to do that. We have been advised that there was some doubt about whether Ministers had the authority to do that in the case that we are considering.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone who does not expect to be invited to serve on the Standing Committee, I remind my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] He is nodding at me; he has me worried. However, we are considering a serious matter and I remind my hon. Friend that the White Fish Authority distributed millions of pounds in grants to Humber trawler companies to enable them to build vessels. Those companies treated their men abysmally when they lost their jobs.

Mr. Morley: Those comments stray wide of the Bill, but my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which the National Audit Office has picked up.
The Fisheries Act 1981 has been mentioned. The power to charge, for which section 3(3) of that Act provides, was subject to detailed consideration. The power to charge was covered in part I of the Act, but some schemes were

established under part II. Advice suggests that it was doubtful that part II provided for the power to make charges.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Section 3 of the 1981 Act refers to charging for any services; it does not specify services under part I, part II or part III of the measure.

Mr. Morley: I understand that. However, Ministers must grant the power to make charges, and they must initially have authority that they can pass on to agencies that subsequently make the charges.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about legal advice and whether the Ministry would publish it. According to precedent, no Government have ever published the legal advice that they received on legislation. However, having said that he may want to raise that issue during consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill.

Mr. David Heath: I was a member of the Freedom of Information Bill Committee and I pressed the Minister's colleagues strongly for that to be included. It was, of course, resisted by the Home Department. Can he provide as much clarity as possible? All that we seek—in much more explicit terms than he has been able to use in either the explanatory notes or the debate—are the outlines of the advice that was given. That would satisfy all Members that the Bill is necessary. We are not satisfied simply because we have not received the outlines.

Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and will consult my officials to see whether there is any scope for providing more information, although he must bear in mind what I said about the accepted precedent on legal advice.
I was asked about the HIB' s role in inspecting vessels and deciding whether they were seaworthy. I understand that it could refer a boat that it thought to be unseaworthy to the relevant authority, which was the Department of Transport. That is the case for its successor—the Sea Fish Industry Authority—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde rightly said, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is now the relevant authority. I understand his point about survival suits. He has great experience of the fishing industry and has made his case before. I was also asked whether Scotland has been consulted. The Scottish Executive are content to support the Bill being passed as United Kingdom legislation and it might be useful to remember that the charges are a pre-devolution measure.
Safety grants have also been mentioned and I say to my hon. Friend that the Bill deals with them and with past inspections. Safety and a safety culture in the fishing industry are of paramount importance and, although it is easy to make political points about the safety grants situation, these are serious issues. Incidentally, the old safety grants scheme did not apply to all fishing vessels and the majority of the smaller ones were completely exempt. There are questions to ask, such as why, despite the scheme, the fishing industry's safety record is so bad compared with that of the Merchant Navy, whose record has improved.
The Government have to address those issues and we in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are doing so. We are considering the possibility of establishing a successor scheme to the safety grants system or a safety scheme system under European Union structural funds. The old system was financed under structural funds, but I do not think that it delivered its objectives. We need a better scheme.
My hon. Friend referred to lifejackets, survival suits and training. We must consider those issues.

Mr. Moss: Can the Minister tell the House unequivocally whether he is giving a commitment to reintroduce safety grants for fishing vessels?

Mr. Morley: The debate is very narrow and we are not dealing with that. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that we take safety seriously.
We are considering the Government's role in working in partnership with the industry, which also has to take responsibility, and ways of improving the safety culture.

Mr. Moss: rose—

Mr. Morley: I am about to conclude.
The measure is narrow and technical, but we have to take safety seriously. I was asked why we have to introduce it if no one has taken legal action against the Ministry. No one has taken action, but I must point out what happened when the previous Government introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
The Factortame judgment followed. It was illegal legislation that was poorly thought through. It means that the taxpayer is liable for large sums of money, which will have to be paid in compensation. Those are issues that the Government have inherited, are addressing, will resolve and sort out properly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 20th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 2nd May 2000.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 20th April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That:

(i) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee:
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 9th March at half-past Two o'clock, to consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(3) in respect of the sitting on Thursday 9th March, Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) shall have effect with the substitution of the word `three' for the words 'two and a half' in paragraph (2) of the Order—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Petition

Miss Anne McIntosh: I present petitions on behalf of my constituents in Vale of York, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). There are more than 40,000 signatures from the whole of north Yorkshire. Almost 7,000 come from Vale of York.
The petition is raised in view of the threat to post offices and sub-post offices in rural locations and market towns from making payments of benefits and pensions by automated means only through banks, when most banks in north Yorkshire villages and small towns have already closed. The petition states:

I beg to submit to the House of Commons the petition of residents of the Vale of York constituency, of the Richmond constituency and of the Ryedale constituency in the names of myself and right hon. and hon. Members, declaring that we are concerned at the Government's plans to pay benefits directly into bank accounts instead of over the counter at post offices as this will have a serious impact on local post offices and endanger a mainstay of village life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to rethink these proposals
And the petitioners remain, yours faithfully, Mrs. Caroline Patmore and others.

To lie upon the table.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.